These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22943335)
1. Have the media influenced the use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty? A review of UK print media. Malviya A; Stafford GH; Villar RJ; Villar RN Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2012 Sep; 94(6):432-7. PubMed ID: 22943335 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. de Steiger RN; Hang JR; Miller LN; Graves SE; Davidson DC J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2011 Dec; 93(24):2287-93. PubMed ID: 22258775 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Are Females at Greater Risk for Revision Surgery After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty With the Articular Surface Replacement Prosthesis? Donahue GS; Lindgren V; Galea VP; Madanat R; Muratoglu O; Malchau H Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2016 Oct; 474(10):2257-65. PubMed ID: 27121872 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Hip resurfacing: case closed? A bibliometric analysis of the past 10 years. Shah RV; Ly JA; Magnuson JA; Thompson M; Lorei MP Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2024 Feb; 144(2):909-916. PubMed ID: 37792058 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. What Is the Rerevision Rate After Revising a Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? Analysis From the AOANJRR. Wong JM; Liu YL; Graves S; de Steiger R Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2015 Nov; 473(11):3458-64. PubMed ID: 25721576 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Intraoperative Complications and Mid-Term Follow-Up of Large-Diameter Head Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty. Miettinen SSA; Mäkinen TJ; Mäkelä K; Huhtala H; Kettunen JS; Remes V Scand J Surg; 2018 Jun; 107(2):180-186. PubMed ID: 29333941 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Do the print media "hype" genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. Bubela TM; Caulfield TA CMAJ; 2004 Apr; 170(9):1399-407. PubMed ID: 15111473 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Implications of Introducing New Technology: Comparative Survivorship Modeling of Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacements and Contemporary Alternatives in the National Joint Registry. Hunt LP; Whitehouse MR; Beswick A; Porter ML; Howard P; Blom AW J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2018 Feb; 100(3):189-196. PubMed ID: 29406339 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Poor outcome of revised resurfacing hip arthroplasty. de Steiger RN; Miller LN; Prosser GH; Graves SE; Davidson DC; Stanford TE Acta Orthop; 2010 Feb; 81(1):72-6. PubMed ID: 20170416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Results and lessons learned from a United States hip resurfacing investigational device exemption trial. Stulberg BN; Trier KK; Naughton M; Zadzilka JD J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2008 Aug; 90 Suppl 3():21-6. PubMed ID: 18676932 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Choice of hip prosthesis in patients younger than 50 years]. Schreurs BW; Busch VJ; Veth RP Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2007 Sep; 151(35):1918-22. PubMed ID: 17907541 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. A five-year radiostereometric follow-up of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty. Itayem R; Arndt A; McMinn DJ; Daniel J; Lundberg A J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2007 Sep; 89(9):1140-3. PubMed ID: 17905947 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Resurfacing versus conventional total hip arthroplasty - review of comparative clinical and basic science studies. Marker DR; Strimbu K; McGrath MS; Zywiel MG; Mont MA Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis; 2009; 67(2):120-7. PubMed ID: 19583538 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: comparison of three designs from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Junnila M; Kostensalo I; Virolainen P; Remes V; Matilainen M; Vahlberg T; Pulkkinen P; Eskelinen A; Itälä A; Mäkelä K Scand J Surg; 2014 Mar; 103(1):54-9. PubMed ID: 24345980 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A two-year study. Glyn-Jones S; Gill HS; McLardy-Smith P; Murray DW J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2004 Mar; 86(2):172-6. PubMed ID: 15046428 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Independent predictors of revision following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data. Jameson SS; Baker PN; Mason J; Porter ML; Deehan DJ; Reed MR J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2012 Jun; 94(6):746-54. PubMed ID: 22628587 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]