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 *

199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25743106)

  • 1. Is There A Difference in Bone Ingrowth in Modular Versus Monoblock Porous Tantalum Tibial Trays?
    Hanzlik JA; Day JS; Rimnac CM; Kurtz SM;
    J Arthroplasty; 2015 Jun; 30(6):1073-8. PubMed ID: 25743106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cementless Porous Tantalum Monoblock Tibia vs Cemented Modular Tibia in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.
    Hu B; Chen Y; Zhu H; Wu H; Yan S
    J Arthroplasty; 2017 Feb; 32(2):666-674. PubMed ID: 27776898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Cementless Porous Tantalum Monoblock Tibial Component: A Minimum 10-Year Follow-Up.
    De Martino I; D'Apolito R; Sculco PK; Poultsides LA; Gasparini G
    J Arthroplasty; 2016 Oct; 31(10):2193-8. PubMed ID: 27172865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up.
    Kamath AF; Lewallen DG; Hanssen AD
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2015 Feb; 97(3):216-23. PubMed ID: 25653322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Midterm Comparison of Tibial Fixation between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Substituting Porous Tantalum Total Knee Arthroplasty: Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Analysis.
    Kaneko T; Kono N; Mochizuki Y; Hada M; Toyoda S; Ikegami H; Musha Y
    J Knee Surg; 2021 Jan; 34(1):47-56. PubMed ID: 31288269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Mid-term results of total knee arthroplasty with a porous tantalum monoblock tibial component.
    Hayakawa K; Date H; Tsujimura S; Nojiri S; Yamada H; Nakagawa K
    Knee; 2014 Jan; 21(1):199-203. PubMed ID: 23871406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Uncemented Tantalum Monoblock Tibial Fixation for Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients Less Than 60 Years of Age: Mean 10-Year Follow-up.
    DeFrancesco CJ; Canseco JA; Nelson CL; Israelite CL; Kamath AF
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2018 May; 100(10):865-870. PubMed ID: 29762282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Bone ingrowth in well-fixed retrieved porous tantalum implants.
    Hanzlik JA; Day JS;
    J Arthroplasty; 2013 Jun; 28(6):922-7. PubMed ID: 23518432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of a monoblock tibial component.
    O'Keefe TJ; Winter S; Lewallen DG; Robertson DD; Poggie RA
    J Arthroplasty; 2010 Aug; 25(5):785-92. PubMed ID: 19640673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Histologic retrieval analysis of a porous tantalum metal implant in an infected primary total knee arthroplasty.
    Sambaziotis C; Lovy AJ; Koller KE; Bloebaum RD; Hirsh DM; Kim SJ
    J Arthroplasty; 2012 Aug; 27(7):1413.e5-9. PubMed ID: 22178612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Removal of a well-fixed trabecular metal monoblock tibial component.
    Klein GR; Levine HB; Hartzband MA
    J Arthroplasty; 2008 Jun; 23(4):619-22. PubMed ID: 18514886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Prospective results of uncemented tantalum monoblock tibia in total knee arthroplasty: minimum 5-year follow-up in patients younger than 55 years.
    Kamath AF; Lee GC; Sheth NP; Nelson CL; Garino JP; Israelite CL
    J Arthroplasty; 2011 Dec; 26(8):1390-5. PubMed ID: 21872424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Efficacy of cementless porous tantalum tibial components versus cemented tibial components in primary total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis.
    Li L; Pan C; Zhang X; Liu W; Zhang T; Liu Y; Li J; Ma Y; Jia C; Liu X; Shi C
    Medicine (Baltimore); 2024 Apr; 103(14):e37697. PubMed ID: 38579049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Cementless vs Cemented Tibial Fixation in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.
    Behery OA; Kearns SM; Rabinowitz JM; Levine BR
    J Arthroplasty; 2017 May; 32(5):1510-1515. PubMed ID: 28082042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Trabecular metal monoblock versus modular tibial trays in total knee arthroplasty: meta-analysis of randomized control trials.
    Abulhail S; Hameed S; Abousamhadaneh M; Al Haneedi G; Al Ateeq Aldosari M
    Int Orthop; 2022 Nov; 46(11):2509-2516. PubMed ID: 36031663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of bone mineral density between porous tantalum and cemented tibial total knee arthroplasty components.
    Minoda Y; Kobayashi A; Iwaki H; Ikebuchi M; Inori F; Takaoka K
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2010 Mar; 92(3):700-6. PubMed ID: 20194329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Primary Stability in Cementless Rotating Platform Total Knee Arthroplasty.
    Small SR; Rogge RD; Reyes EM; Seale RB; Elliott JB; Malinzak RA
    J Knee Surg; 2021 Jan; 34(2):192-199. PubMed ID: 31394587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cementless total knee replacement fixation: a contemporary durable solution--affirms.
    Kwong LM; Nielsen ES; Ruiz DR; Hsu AH; Dines MD; Mellano CM
    Bone Joint J; 2014 Nov; 96-B(11 Supple A):87-92. PubMed ID: 25381416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Total knee arthroplasty with an uncemented trabecular metal tibial component: a registry-based analysis.
    Niemeläinen M; Skyttä ET; Remes V; Mäkelä K; Eskelinen A
    J Arthroplasty; 2014 Jan; 29(1):57-60. PubMed ID: 23683519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement.
    Meneghini RM; Lewallen DG; Hanssen AD
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2008 Jan; 90(1):78-84. PubMed ID: 18171960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.