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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

214 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24090660)

  • 1. Long-term outcome of a metal-on-polyethylene cementless hip resurfacing.
    Tan TL; Ebramzadeh E; Campbell PA; Al-Hamad M; Amstutz HC
    J Arthroplasty; 2014 Apr; 29(4):802-7. PubMed ID: 24090660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cementless acetabular socket revisions using Metasul metal-on-metal bearings.
    Park KS; Yoon TR; Song EK; Lee KB
    J Arthroplasty; 2010 Jun; 25(4):533-7. PubMed ID: 19493650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Early failure of the Durom prosthesis in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in Chinese patients.
    Li J; He C; Li D; Zheng W; Liu D; Xu W
    J Arthroplasty; 2013 Dec; 28(10):1816-21. PubMed ID: 23831082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Current status of modern fully porous coated metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.
    Gross TP; Liu F
    J Arthroplasty; 2014 Jan; 29(1):181-5. PubMed ID: 23680504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Metal-on-metal surface replacement: a triumph of hope over reason: affirms.
    Cuckler JM
    Orthopedics; 2011 Sep; 34(9):e439-41. PubMed ID: 21902124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Alternative bearings in total hip arthroplasty in the young patient.
    Kamath AF; Prieto H; Lewallen DG
    Orthop Clin North Am; 2013 Oct; 44(4):451-62. PubMed ID: 24095062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A comparative study of four bearing couples of the same acetabular and femoral component: a mean follow-up of 11.5 years.
    Topolovec M; Milošev I
    J Arthroplasty; 2014 Jan; 29(1):176-80. PubMed ID: 23639386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.
    Smith AJ; Dieppe P; Howard PW; Blom AW;
    Lancet; 2012 Nov; 380(9855):1759-66. PubMed ID: 23036895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Total hip arthroplasty in the young: special emphasis on post-SCFE patients.
    Nelms NJ; Lewallen LW; McIntosh AL; Sierra RJ
    J Pediatr Orthop; 2013; 33 Suppl 1():S137-42. PubMed ID: 23764787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The first 100 fully porous-coated femoral components in hip resurfacing.
    Gross TP; Liu F
    Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis; 2011; 69 Suppl 1():S30-5. PubMed ID: 22035482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in patients 40 years old and younger.
    Reito A; Eskelinen A; Puolakka T; Pajamäki J
    Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2013 Feb; 133(2):267-73. PubMed ID: 23135156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. One-component revision of failed hip resurfacing from adverse reaction to metal wear debris.
    Pritchett JW
    J Arthroplasty; 2014 Jan; 29(1):219-24. PubMed ID: 23680501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Long-term survival and reason for revision of Wagner resurfacing hip arthroplasty.
    Costi K; Howie DW; Campbell DG; McGee MA; Cornish BL
    J Arthroplasty; 2010 Jun; 25(4):522-8. PubMed ID: 19520546
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Clinical experience of Ganz surgical dislocation approach for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.
    Beaulé PE; Shim P; Banga K
    J Arthroplasty; 2009 Sep; 24(6 Suppl):127-31. PubMed ID: 19553070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Revision of ceramic head fracture after third generation ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty.
    Koo KH; Ha YC; Kim SY; Yoon KS; Min BW; Kim SR
    J Arthroplasty; 2014 Jan; 29(1):214-8. PubMed ID: 23683525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Metal-backed acetabular components with conventional polyethylene: a review of 9113 primary components with a follow-up of 20 years.
    Hallan G; Dybvik E; Furnes O; Havelin LI
    J Bone Joint Surg Br; 2010 Feb; 92(2):196-201. PubMed ID: 20130308
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Fixation and wear with a contemporary acetabular component and cross-linked polyethylene at minimum 10-year follow-up.
    Bedard NA; Callaghan JJ; Stefl MD; Willman TJ; Liu SS; Goetz DD
    J Arthroplasty; 2014 Oct; 29(10):1961-9. PubMed ID: 24939638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Curved-stem hip resurfacing: minimum 20-year followup.
    Pritchett JW
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2008 May; 466(5):1177-85. PubMed ID: 18338217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.