148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22505495)
1. Influence of cementless hip stems on femoral cortical strain pattern depending on their extent of porous coating.
Ellenrieder M; Steinhauser E; Bader R; Mittelmeier W
Biomed Tech (Berl); 2012 Apr; 57(2):121-9. PubMed ID: 22505495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Quantification of implant micromotion, strain shielding, and bone resorption with porous-coated anatomic medullary locking femoral prostheses.
Engh CA; O'Connor D; Jasty M; McGovern TF; Bobyn JD; Harris WH
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1992 Dec; (285):13-29. PubMed ID: 1446429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A plasma-sprayed titanium proximal coating reduces the risk of periprosthetic femoral fracture in cementless hip arthroplasty.
Miles B; Walter WL; Kolos E; Waters T; Appleyard R; Gillies RM; Donohoo S; Ruys AJ
Biomed Mater Eng; 2015; 25(3):267-78. PubMed ID: 26407113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cementless femoral design concerns. Rationale for extensive porous coating.
Nourbash PS; Paprosky WG
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1998 Oct; (355):189-99. PubMed ID: 9917604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Changes in strain distribution of loaded proximal femora caused by different types of cementless femoral stems.
Decking R; Puhl W; Simon U; Claes LE
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2006 Jun; 21(5):495-501. PubMed ID: 16457913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. How stiffness and distal interlocking of revision hip stems influence the femoral cortical strain pattern.
Ellenrieder M; Steinhauser E; Bader R; Mittelmeier W
J Orthop Sci; 2012 May; 17(3):205-12. PubMed ID: 22406866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of femoral strains with cementless proximal-fill femoral implants of varied stem length.
Arno S; Fetto J; Nguyen NQ; Kinariwala N; Takemoto R; Oh C; Walker PS
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2012 Aug; 27(7):680-5. PubMed ID: 22503474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Noncemented total hip arthroplasty: influence of extramedullary parameters on initial implant stability and on bone-implant interface stresses].
Ramaniraka NA; Rakotomanana LR; Rubin PJ; Leyvraz P
Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot; 2000 Oct; 86(6):590-7. PubMed ID: 11060433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Primary stability and strain distribution of cementless hip stems as a function of implant design.
Bieger R; Ignatius A; Decking R; Claes L; Reichel H; Dürselen L
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2012 Feb; 27(2):158-64. PubMed ID: 21889243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Influence on load transfer of different femoral neck endoprostheses].
Steinhauser E; Ellenrieder M; Gruber G; Busch R; Gradinger R; Mittelmeier W
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb; 2006; 144(4):386-93. PubMed ID: 16941296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Determinants of stress shielding: design versus materials versus interface.
Sumner DR; Galante JO
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1992 Jan; (274):202-12. PubMed ID: 1729005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Influence of femoral stem geometry, material and extent of porous coating on bone ingrowth and atrophy in cementless total hip arthroplasty: an iterative finite element model.
Folgado J; Fernandes PR; Jacobs CR; Pellegrini VD
Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin; 2009 Apr; 12(2):135-45. PubMed ID: 19242833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An in vitro study of the strain distribution in human femora with anatomical and customised femoral stems.
Østbyhaug PO; Klaksvik J; Romundstad P; Aamodt A
J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2009 May; 91(5):676-82. PubMed ID: 19407307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Total hip arthroplasty. Concerns with extensively porous coated femoral components.
McAuley JP; Culpepper WJ; Engh CA
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 1998 Oct; (355):182-8. PubMed ID: 9917603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Experimental study on the stability of cementless porous coated endoprosthesis].
Otani T
Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi; 1992 Oct; 66(10):1031-42. PubMed ID: 1460374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Osseointegration of a hydroxyapatite-coated multilayered mesh stem.
Kusakabe H; Sakamaki T; Nihei K; Oyama Y; Yanagimoto S; Ichimiya M; Kimura J; Toyama Y
Biomaterials; 2004 Jul; 25(15):2957-69. PubMed ID: 14967528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Biomechanical comparison of newly designed stemless prosthesis and conventional hip prosthesis--an experimental study.
Tai CL; Lee MS; Chen WP; Hsieh PH; Lee PC; Shih CH
Biomed Mater Eng; 2005; 15(3):239-49. PubMed ID: 15912004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Longitudinal and axial stability of a cementless metaphyseal versus a fully porous coated cylindrical femoral stem.
Rivera VR; Parks BG; Boucher HR
J Surg Orthop Adv; 2009; 18(2):99-102. PubMed ID: 19602338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cortical and interfacial bone changes around a non-cemented hip implant: simulations using a combined strain/damage remodelling algorithm.
Scannell PT; Prendergast PJ
Med Eng Phys; 2009 May; 31(4):477-88. PubMed ID: 19188086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The load carrying and fatigue properties of the stem-cement interface with smooth and porous coated femoral components.
Manley MT; Stern LS; Gurtowski J
J Biomed Mater Res; 1985; 19(5):563-75. PubMed ID: 4066729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
