170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23846608)
1. Are short fully coated stems adequate for "simple" femoral revisions?
Tetreault MW; Shukla SK; Yi PH; Sporer SM; Della Valle CJ
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2014 Feb; 472(2):577-83. PubMed ID: 23846608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Minimum 8-year follow-up of revision THA with severe femoral bone defects using extensively porous-coated stems and cortical strut allografts.
Ding ZC; Ling TX; Yuan MC; Qin YZ; Mou P; Wang HY; Zhou ZK
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2020 Apr; 21(1):218. PubMed ID: 32268894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. High Survivorship With Cementless Stems and Cortical Strut Allografts for Large Femoral Bone Defects in Revision THA.
Kim YH; Park JW; Kim JS; Rastogi D
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2015 Sep; 473(9):2990-3000. PubMed ID: 26013152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Is There a Benefit to Modularity in 'Simpler' Femoral Revisions?
Huddleston JI; Tetreault MW; Yu M; Bedair H; Hansen VJ; Choi HR; Goodman SB; Sporer SM; Della Valle CJ
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2016 Feb; 474(2):415-20. PubMed ID: 26245164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems Osseointegrate Reliably at Short Term in Revision THAs.
Sandiford NA; Garbuz DS; Masri BA; Duncan CP
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2017 Jan; 475(1):186-192. PubMed ID: 27672012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Can a Conical Implant Successfully Address Complex Anatomy in Primary THA? Radiographs and Hip Scores at Early Followup.
Zhang Q; Goodman SB; Maloney WJ; Huddleston JI
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2016 Feb; 474(2):459-64. PubMed ID: 26245165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of a hydroxyapatite-coated sleeve and a porous-coated sleeve with a modular revision hip stem. A prospective, randomized study.
Bolognesi MP; Pietrobon R; Clifford PE; Vail TP
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2004 Dec; 86(12):2720-5. PubMed ID: 15590859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. What Are the Long-term Results of Cemented Revision THA with Use of Both Acetabular and Femoral Impaction Bone Grafting in Patients Younger Than 55 Years?
Verspeek J; Nijenhuis TA; Kuijpers MFL; Rijnen WHC; Schreurs BW
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2021 Jan; 479(1):84-91. PubMed ID: 32898047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. What Is the Long-term (27- to 32-year) Survivorship of an Uncemented Tapered Titanium Femoral Component and Survival in Patients Younger Than 50 Years?
Streit MR; Lehner B; Peitgen DS; Innmann MM; Omlor GW; Walker T; Merle C; Moradi B
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2020 Jun; 478(6):1283-1291. PubMed ID: 32187099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Two- to 4-Year Followup of a Short Stem THA Construct: Excellent Fixation, Thigh Pain a Concern.
Amendola RL; Goetz DD; Liu SS; Callaghan JJ
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2017 Feb; 475(2):375-383. PubMed ID: 27417852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Midterm results of the cylindrical fully porous-coated uncemented femoral stem in revision patients with Paprosky I-IIIA femoral defects.
Ahmet S; İsmet KÖ; Mehmet E; Eren Y; Remzi T; Önder Y
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong); 2018; 26(2):2309499018783906. PubMed ID: 29969950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Long-term results and bone remodeling after THA with a short, metaphyseal-fitting anatomic cementless stem.
Kim YH; Park JW; Kim JS; Kang JS
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2014 Mar; 472(3):943-50. PubMed ID: 24163094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: reliable choice for stem revision in Paprosky femoral type III defects.
Chung LH; Wu PK; Chen CF; Chen WM; Chen TH; Liu CL
Orthopedics; 2012 Jul; 35(7):e1017-21. PubMed ID: 22784893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Durability of second-generation extensively porous-coated stems in patients age 50 and younger.
Moyer JA; Metz CM; Callaghan JJ; Hennessy DW; Liu SS
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2010 Feb; 468(2):448-53. PubMed ID: 19727992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Short-term outcomes with the REDAPT monolithic, tapered, fluted, grit-blasted, forged titanium revision femoral stem.
Gabor JA; Padilla JA; Feng JE; Schnaser E; Lutes WB; Park KJ; Incavo S; Vigdorchik J; Schwarzkopf R
Bone Joint J; 2020 Feb; 102-B(2):191-197. PubMed ID: 32009430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Increased risk of periprosthetic femur fractures associated with a unique cementless stem design.
Watts CD; Abdel MP; Lewallen DG; Berry DJ; Hanssen AD
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2015 Jun; 473(6):2045-53. PubMed ID: 25502478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Distal locking stem for revision femoral loosening and peri-prosthetic fractures.
Mertl P; Philippot R; Rosset P; Migaud H; Tabutin J; Van de Velde D
Int Orthop; 2011 Feb; 35(2):275-82. PubMed ID: 21184221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Complex revision total hip arthroplasty with modular stems at a mean of 14 years.
McCarthy JC; Lee JA
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2007 Dec; 465():166-9. PubMed ID: 17891035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Impaction grafting in the femur in cementless modular revision total hip arthroplasty: a descriptive outcome analysis of 243 cases with the MRP-TITAN revision implant.
Wimmer MD; Randau TM; Deml MC; Ascherl R; Nöth U; Forst R; Gravius N; Wirtz D; Gravius S
BMC Musculoskelet Disord; 2013 Jan; 14():19. PubMed ID: 23311769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Modular tapered implants for severe femoral bone loss in THA: reliable osseointegration but frequent complications.
Brown NM; Tetreault M; Cipriano CA; Della Valle CJ; Paprosky W; Sporer S
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2015 Feb; 473(2):555-60. PubMed ID: 25053289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
