578 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19085490)
1. Limited range of motion of hip resurfacing arthroplasty due to unfavorable ratio of prosthetic head size and femoral neck diameter.
Kluess D; Zietz C; Lindner T; Mittelmeier W; Schmitz KP; Bader R
Acta Orthop; 2008 Dec; 79(6):748-54. PubMed ID: 19085490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Less range of motion with resurfacing arthroplasty than with total hip arthroplasty: in vitro examination of 8 designs.
Bengs BC; Sangiorgio SN; Ebramzadeh E
Acta Orthop; 2008 Dec; 79(6):755-62. PubMed ID: 19085491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Femoral head to neck offset after hip resurfacing is critical for range of motion.
Girard J; Krantz N; Bocquet D; Wavreille G; Migaud H
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2012 Feb; 27(2):165-9. PubMed ID: 21925779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Influence of femoral head size on impingement, dislocation and stress distribution in total hip replacement.
Kluess D; Martin H; Mittelmeier W; Schmitz KP; Bader R
Med Eng Phys; 2007 May; 29(4):465-71. PubMed ID: 16901743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Influence of total hip design on dislocation: a computer model and clinical analysis.
Padgett DE; Lipman J; Robie B; Nestor BJ
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2006 Jun; 447():48-52. PubMed ID: 16741474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Factors affecting hip range of motion in surface replacement arthroplasty.
Vendittoli PA; Ganapathi M; Nuño N; Plamondon D; Lavigne M
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2007 Nov; 22(9):1004-12. PubMed ID: 17870221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Bony impingement affects range of motion after total hip arthroplasty: A subject-specific approach.
Kessler O; Patil S; Wirth S; Mayr E; Colwell CW; D'Lima DD
J Orthop Res; 2008 Apr; 26(4):443-52. PubMed ID: 18050356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Computer-based motion simulation of total hip prostheses with ceramic-on-ceramic wear couple. Analysis of implant design andorientation as influence parameters].
Bader R; Steinhauser E; Gradinger R; Willmann G; Mittelmeier W
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb; 2002; 140(3):310-6. PubMed ID: 12085297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The impact of the CCD-angle on range of motion and cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty.
Widmer KH; Majewski M
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2005 Aug; 20(7):723-8. PubMed ID: 15964112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a skeptic's view.
Lachiewicz PF
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2007 Dec; 465():86-91. PubMed ID: 17632416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Impingement after total hip arthroplasty related to prosthetic component selection and range of motion.
Gondi G; Roberson JR; Ganey TM; Shahriari A; Hutton WC
J South Orthop Assoc; 1997; 6(4):266-72. PubMed ID: 9434247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A three-dimensional parameterized and visually kinematic simulation module for the theoretical range of motion of total hip arthroplasty.
Ji WT; Tao K; Wang CT
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2010 Jun; 25(5):427-32. PubMed ID: 20189695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Prosthetic hip range of motion and impingement. The effects of head and neck geometry.
Chandler DR; Glousman R; Hull D; McGuire PJ; Kim IS; Clarke IC; Sarmiento A
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1982 Jun; (166):284-91. PubMed ID: 7083681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The safe-zones for combined cup and neck anteversions that fulfill the essential range of motion and their optimum combination in total hip replacements.
Yoshimine F
J Biomech; 2006; 39(7):1315-23. PubMed ID: 15894324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Unconstrained tripolar hip implants: effect on hip stability.
Guyen O; Chen QS; Bejui-Hugues J; Berry DJ; An KN
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2007 Feb; 455():202-8. PubMed ID: 17279045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of bone removed during total hip arthroplasty with a resurfacing or conventional femoral component: a cadaveric study.
Su EP; Sheehan M; Su SL
J Arthroplasty; 2010 Feb; 25(2):325-9. PubMed ID: 19056234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effects of the femoral offset and the head size on the safe range of motion in total hip arthroplasty.
Matsushita A; Nakashima Y; Jingushi S; Yamamoto T; Kuraoka A; Iwamoto Y
J Arthroplasty; 2009 Jun; 24(4):646-51. PubMed ID: 18534445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The influence of the size of the component on the outcome of resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a review of the literature.
Shimmin AJ; Walter WL; Esposito C
J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2010 Apr; 92(4):469-76. PubMed ID: 20357319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The influence of the oscillation angle and the neck anteversion of the prosthesis on the cup safe-zone that fulfills the criteria for range of motion in total hip replacements. The required oscillation angle for an acceptable cup safe-zone.
Yoshimine F
J Biomech; 2005 Jan; 38(1):125-32. PubMed ID: 15519347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Method for the evaluation of factors influencing the dislocation stability of total hip endoprotheses].
Bader R; Scholz R; Steinhauser E; Busch R; Mittelmeier W
Biomed Tech (Berl); 2004 May; 49(5):137-44. PubMed ID: 15212199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
