210 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23636766)
1. A biomechanical study of the Birmingham mid head resection arthroplasty: effect of stem size on femoral neck fracture.
Aghayan S; Shepherd DE; Davis ET
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2013 Aug; 227(8):913-8. PubMed ID: 23636766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A biomechanical comparison of epiphyseal versus metaphyseal fixed bone-conserving hip arthroplasty.
Olsen M; Sellan M; Zdero R; Waddell JP; Schemitsch EH
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2011 May; 93 Suppl 2():122-7. PubMed ID: 21543701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The impact of proximal femoral morphology on failure strength with a mid-head resection short-stem hip arthroplasty.
Olsen M; Al Saied M; Morison Z; Sellan M; Waddell JP; Schemitsch EH
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2014 Dec; 228(12):1275-80. PubMed ID: 25515228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessment of femoral neck fracture risk for a novel proximal epiphyseal hip prosthesis.
Cristofolini L; Juszczyk M; Taddei F; Field RE; Rushton N; Viceconti M
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2011 Jul; 26(6):585-91. PubMed ID: 21334123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Birmingham Mid-Head Resection Periprosthetic Fracture.
Aqil A; Sheikh HQ; Masjedi M; Jeffers J; Cobb J
Clin Orthop Surg; 2015 Sep; 7(3):402-5. PubMed ID: 26330966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A biomechanical investigation of implant alignment and femoral neck notching with the Birmingham Mid-Head Resection.
Olsen M; Lewis PM; Waddell JP; Schemitsch EH
J Arthroplasty; 2010 Sep; 25(6 Suppl):112-7. PubMed ID: 20637560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The biomechanical effect of notch size, notch location, and femur orientation on hip resurfacing failure.
Morison Z; Olsen M; Higgins GA; Zdero R; Schemitsch EH
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 2013 Aug; 60(8):2214-21. PubMed ID: 23481682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Femoral component positioning in resurfacing arthroplasty--effects on cortical strains.
Kummer FJ; Pereira G; Schachter AK; Jaffe WL
Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis; 2009; 67(4):341-6. PubMed ID: 20001936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A biomechanical and finite element analysis of femoral neck notching during hip resurfacing.
Davis ET; Olsen M; Zdero R; Papini M; Waddell JP; Schemitsch EH
J Biomech Eng; 2009 Apr; 131(4):041002. PubMed ID: 19275431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Stemmed TKA in a femur with a total hip arthroplasty: is there a safe distance between the stem tips?
Soenen M; Baracchi M; De Corte R; Labey L; Innocenti B
J Arthroplasty; 2013 Sep; 28(8):1437-45. PubMed ID: 23489732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Experimental evaluation of new concepts in hip arthroplasty.
Wik TS
Acta Orthop Suppl; 2012 Apr; 83(345):1-26. PubMed ID: 22489909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Disassembly of a modular femoral component after femoral head prosthetic replacement.
Shiga T; Mori M; Hayashida T; Fujiwara Y; Ogura T
J Arthroplasty; 2010 Jun; 25(4):659.e17-9. PubMed ID: 19361950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A two-year radiostereometric follow-up of the first generation Birmingham mid head resection arthroplasty.
Itayem R; Arndt A; Daniel J; McMinn DJ; Lundberg A
Hip Int; 2014; 24(4):355-62. PubMed ID: 24817401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A clinicoradiologic study of the Birmingham Mid-Head Resection device.
Daniel J; Pradhan C; Ziaee H; McMinn DJ
Orthopedics; 2008 Dec; 31(12 Suppl 2):. PubMed ID: 19298020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Performance of the resurfaced hip. Part 1: the influence of the prosthesis size and positioning on the remodelling and fracture of the femoral neck.
Dickinson AS; Taylor AC; Browne M
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2010; 224(3):427-39. PubMed ID: 20408488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Femoral neck fracture after Birmingham Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: prevalence, time to fracture, and outcome after revision.
Matharu GS; McBryde CW; Revell MP; Pynsent PB
J Arthroplasty; 2013 Jan; 28(1):147-53. PubMed ID: 22819379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The Birmingham mid-head resection arthroplasty--minimum two year clinical and radiological follow-up: an independent single surgeon series.
Rahman L; Muirhead-Allwood SK
Hip Int; 2011; 21(3):356-60. PubMed ID: 21698588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Resurfacing head size and femoral fracture: Are registry conclusions on head size justified?
Aqil A; Wiik A; Clarke S; Masjedi M; Cobb J
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol; 2015 Dec; 25(8):1301-5. PubMed ID: 26407614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Biomechanical characteristics of hip prosthesis in hip arthroplasty treating elderly patients with Evans I-III intertrochanteric fracture of femur].
Liu WG; Liu SH; Yin QF; Xiao SP; Wang SJ
Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao; 2013 Feb; 35(1):108-11. PubMed ID: 23472858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
