159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23477855)
1. Computerized range of motion analysis following dual mobility total hip arthroplasty, traditional total hip arthroplasty, and hip resurfacing.
Klingenstein GG; Yeager AM; Lipman JD; Westrich GH
J Arthroplasty; 2013 Aug; 28(7):1173-6. PubMed ID: 23477855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Which procedure better restores intact hip range of motion: total hip arthroplasty or resurfacing? A combined cadaveric and computer simulation study.
Incavo SJ; Thompson MT; Gold JE; Patel RV; Icenogle KD; Noble PC
J Arthroplasty; 2011 Apr; 26(3):391-7. PubMed ID: 20378308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Increased range of motion to impingement with large head total hip arthroplasty: point of diminishing returns.
Klingenstein GG; Yeager AM; Lipman JD; Westrich GH
Hip Int; 2012; 22(3):261-5. PubMed ID: 22773504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Hip capsule biomechanics after arthroplasty: the effect of implant, approach, and surgical repair.
Logishetty K; van Arkel RJ; Ng KCG; Muirhead-Allwood SK; Cobb JP; Jeffers JRT
Bone Joint J; 2019 Apr; 101-B(4):426-434. PubMed ID: 30929480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Impingement and stability of total hip arthroplasty versus femoral head resurfacing using a cadaveric robotics model.
Colbrunn RW; Bottros JJ; Butler RS; Klika AK; Bonner TF; Greeson C; van den Bogert AJ; Barsoum WK
J Orthop Res; 2013 Jul; 31(7):1108-15. PubMed ID: 23494830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Does dual-mobility cup geometry affect posterior horizontal dislocation distance?
Heffernan C; Banerjee S; Nevelos J; Macintyre J; Issa K; Markel DC; Mont MA
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2014 May; 472(5):1535-44. PubMed ID: 24464508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Do hip resurfacing and short hip stem arthroplasties differ from conventional hip stem replacement regarding impingement-free range of motion?
Kebbach M; Schulze C; Meyenburg C; Kluess D; Sungu M; Hartmann A; Günther KP; Bader R
J Orthop Res; 2023 Nov; 41(11):2501-2515. PubMed ID: 37132090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years followup.
Vail TP; Mina CA; Yergler JD; Pietrobon R
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2006 Dec; 453():123-31. PubMed ID: 17006369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Range of motion after stemmed total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing - a clinical study.
Le Duff MJ; Wisk LE; Amstutz HC
Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis; 2009; 67(2):177-81. PubMed ID: 19583550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Influence of femoral bowing on range of motion after total hip arthroplasty.
Akiyama K; Shibuya T
Int Orthop; 2018 Aug; 42(8):1795-1802. PubMed ID: 29275431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Anatomic hip range of motion after implantation during total hip arthroplasty as measured by a navigation system.
Miki H; Yamanashi W; Nishii T; Sato Y; Yoshikawa H; Sugano N
J Arthroplasty; 2007 Oct; 22(7):946-52. PubMed ID: 17920464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Soft tissue restricts impingement-free mobility in total hip arthroplasty.
Woerner M; Weber M; Sendtner E; Springorum R; Worlicek M; Craiovan B; Grifka J; Renkawitz T
Int Orthop; 2017 Feb; 41(2):277-282. PubMed ID: 27150487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The influence of stem offset and neck shaft angles on the range of motion in total hip arthroplasty.
Shoji T; Yamasaki T; Izumi S; Hachisuka S; Ochi M
Int Orthop; 2016 Feb; 40(2):245-53. PubMed ID: 26224610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Resurfacing matched to standard total hip arthroplasty by preoperative activity levels - a comparison of postoperative outcomes.
Zywiel MG; Marker DR; McGrath MS; Delanois RE; Mont MA
Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis; 2009; 67(2):116-9. PubMed ID: 19583537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Dual mobility in total hip arthroplasty.
Plummer DR; Haughom BD; Della Valle CJ
Orthop Clin North Am; 2014 Jan; 45(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 24267202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty for ankylosing spondylitis.
Li J; Xu W; Xu L; Liang Z
J Arthroplasty; 2009 Dec; 24(8):1285-91. PubMed ID: 19682837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Delay of total hip arthroplasty to advanced stage worsens post-operative hip motion in patients with femoral head osteonecrosis.
Jo WL; Lee YK; Ha YC; Kim TY; Koo KH
Int Orthop; 2018 Jul; 42(7):1599-1603. PubMed ID: 29700582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Bony impingement limits design-related increases in hip range of motion.
Bunn A; Colwell CW; D'Lima DD
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2012 Feb; 470(2):418-27. PubMed ID: 21918798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
