186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24355538)
1. Primary hip replacement prostheses and their evidence base: systematic review of literature.
Kynaston-Pearson F; Ashmore AM; Malak TT; Rombach I; Taylor A; Beard D; Arden NK; Price A; Prieto-Alhambra D; Judge A; Carr AJ; Glyn-Jones S
BMJ; 2013 Dec; 347():f6956. PubMed ID: 24355538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Influence of the Type of Hip-Component Fixation and Age of Patients on Mid-Term Revision Rate of Total Hip Replacement].
Kubinec V
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech; 2018; 85(1):46-53. PubMed ID: 30257769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Primary total hip arthroplasty in Catalonia: What is the clinical evidence that supports our prosthesis?
Chaverri-Fierro D; Lobo-Escolar L; Espallargues M; Martínez-Cruz O; Domingo L; Pons-Cabrafiga M
Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol; 2017; 61(3):139-145. PubMed ID: 27916532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthrosis in younger patients in the Finnish arthroplasty register. 4,661 primary replacements followed for 0-22 years.
Eskelinen A; Remes V; Helenius I; Pulkkinen P; Nevalainen J; Paavolainen P
Acta Orthop; 2005 Feb; 76(1):28-41. PubMed ID: 15788305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Understanding the uptake of new hip replacement implants in the UK: a cohort study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.
Penfold CM; Blom AW; Sayers A; Wilkinson JM; Hunt L; Judge A; Whitehouse MR
BMJ Open; 2019 Nov; 9(11):e029572. PubMed ID: 31772087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [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]
7. Appraisal of evidence base for introduction of new implants in hip and knee replacement: a systematic review of five widely used device technologies.
Nieuwenhuijse MJ; Nelissen RG; Schoones JW; Sedrakyan A
BMJ; 2014 Sep; 349():g5133. PubMed ID: 25208953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults.
Parker MJ; Gurusamy K
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2006 Jul; (3):CD001706. PubMed ID: 16855974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Outcomes After Metal-on-metal Hip Revision Surgery Depend on the Reason for Failure: A Propensity Score-matched Study.
Matharu GS; Judge A; Murray DW; Pandit HG
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2018 Feb; 476(2):245-258. PubMed ID: 29529653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Improved survival of uncemented versus cemented femoral stems in patients aged < 70 years in a community total joint registry.
Wechter J; Comfort TK; Tatman P; Mehle S; Gioe TJ
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2013 Nov; 471(11):3588-95. PubMed ID: 23873609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Interest of short implants in hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis of the femoral head: comparative study "uncemented short" vs "cemented conventional" femoral stems.
Miladi M; Villain B; Mebtouche N; Bégué T; Aurégan JC
Int Orthop; 2018 Jul; 42(7):1669-1674. PubMed ID: 29761221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis in patients fifty-five years of age or older. An analysis of the Finnish arthroplasty registry.
Mäkelä KT; Eskelinen A; Pulkkinen P; Paavolainen P; Remes V
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2008 Oct; 90(10):2160-70. PubMed ID: 18829914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Obesity, age, sex, diagnosis, and fixation mode differently affect early cup failure in total hip arthroplasty: a matched case-control study of 4420 patients.
Röder C; Bach B; Berry DJ; Eggli S; Langenhahn R; Busato A
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2010 Aug; 92(10):1954-63. PubMed ID: 20720138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Arthroplasties (with and without bone cement) for proximal femoral fractures in adults.
Parker MJ; Gurusamy KS; Azegami S
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2010 Jun; (6):CD001706. PubMed ID: 20556753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessing the non-inferiority of prosthesis constructs used in hip replacement using data from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man: a benchmarking study.
Deere KC; Whitehouse MR; Porter M; Blom AW; Sayers A
BMJ Open; 2019 Apr; 9(4):e026685. PubMed ID: 31036708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The influence of cemented femoral stem choice on the incidence of revision for periprosthetic fracture after primary total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of national joint registry data.
Palan J; Smith MC; Gregg P; Mellon S; Kulkarni A; Tucker K; Blom AW; Murray DW; Pandit H
Bone Joint J; 2016 Oct; 98-B(10):1347-1354. PubMed ID: 27694588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cemented versus uncemented hip replacement for fracture of the hip.
Hay M; Gottschalk F
Disabil Rehabil; 2005 Sep 30-Oct 15; 27(18-19):1151-5. PubMed ID: 16278184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Is there evidence for accelerated polyethylene wear in uncemented compared to cemented acetabular components? A systematic review of the literature.
van der Veen HC; van Jonbergen HP; Poolman RW; Bulstra SK; van Raay JJ
Int Orthop; 2013 Jan; 37(1):9-14. PubMed ID: 23229800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fractures: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
Azegami S; Gurusamy KS; Parker MJ
Hip Int; 2011; 21(5):509-17. PubMed ID: 21948035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Periprosthetic femoral fractures and trying to avoid them: what is the contribution of femoral component design to the increased risk of periprosthetic femoral fracture?
Carli AV; Negus JJ; Haddad FS
Bone Joint J; 2017 Jan; 99-B(1 Supple A):50-59. PubMed ID: 28042119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
