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 *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30873748)

  • 1. Femoral side-only revision options for the Birmingham resurfacing arthroplasty.
    Chan MK; Caudwell M; Suchowersky A; Ashton A
    ANZ J Surg; 2019 Sep; 89(9):1016-1021. PubMed ID: 30873748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The benefit of the systematic revision of the acetabular implant in favor of a dual mobility articulation during the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur: a 49 cases prospective comparative study.
    Perrin A; Saab M; Putman S; Benad K; Drumez E; Chantelot C
    Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol; 2018 Feb; 28(2):239-246. PubMed ID: 28900737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Conversion of Hip Resurfacing With Retention of Monoblock Acetabular Shell Using Dual-Mobility Components.
    Blevins JL; Shen TS; Morgenstern R; DeNova TA; Su EP
    J Arthroplasty; 2019 Sep; 34(9):2037-2044. PubMed ID: 31178386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Isolated acetabular revision with femoral stem retention after bipolar hip arthroplasty.
    Kaku N; Tabata T; Tagomori H; Tsumura H
    Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2017 Mar; 137(3):425-430. PubMed ID: 28150224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Survivorship and clinical outcome of Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum ten years' follow-up.
    Azam MQ; McMahon S; Hawdon G; Sankineani SR
    Int Orthop; 2016 Jan; 40(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 25820838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Revision of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing cup: technical notes and the use of a novel technique to overcome unique problems.
    Sandiford NA; Kabir C; Muirhead-Allwood SK; Skinner J; Nuthall T
    Hip Int; 2008; 18(3):220-3. PubMed ID: 18924078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients With Parkinson Disease: Improved Outcomes With Dual Mobility Implants and Cementless Fixation.
    Lazennec JY; Kim Y; Pour AE
    J Arthroplasty; 2018 May; 33(5):1455-1461. PubMed ID: 29276118
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A well-fixed femoral stem facing a failed acetabular component: to exchange or not? A 5- to 15-year follow-up study.
    de Thomasson E; Conso C; Mazel C
    Orthop Traumatol Surg Res; 2012 Feb; 98(1):24-9. PubMed ID: 22245150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Function and survival after revision of hip resurfacing.
    Jaiswal A; Gilbert RE; Sunil Kumar KH; Carrothers AD; Kuiper JH; Richardson JB
    Hip Int; 2011; 21(5):610-5. PubMed ID: 21960447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Hip Resurfacing Using Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene: Prospective Study Results at 8.5 Years.
    Pritchett JW
    J Arthroplasty; 2016 Oct; 31(10):2203-8. PubMed ID: 27067469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Dual-mobility arthroplasty failure: a rationale review of causes and technical considerations for revision.
    Hernigou P; Dubory A; Potage D; Roubineau F; Flouzat Lachaniette CH
    Int Orthop; 2017 Mar; 41(3):481-490. PubMed ID: 27872981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Low Frequency of Early Complications With Dual-mobility Acetabular Cups in Cementless Primary THA.
    Chughtai M; Mistry JB; Diedrich AM; Jauregui JJ; Elmallah RK; Bonutti PM; Harwin SF; Malkani AL; Kolisek FR; Mont MA
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2016 Oct; 474(10):2181-7. PubMed ID: 27106128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prevalence of Postoperative Periprosthetic Femur Fractures Between Two Different Femoral Component Designs Used in Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty.
    Christensen KS; Wicker DI; Wight CM; Christensen CP
    J Arthroplasty; 2019 Dec; 34(12):3074-3079. PubMed ID: 31383495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The fate of stable cemented acetabular components retained during revision of a femoral component of a total hip arthroplasty.
    Berger RA; Quigley LR; Jacobs JJ; Sheinkop MB; Rosenberg AG; Galante JO
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 1999 Dec; 81(12):1682-91. PubMed ID: 10608379
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [The Role of a Modular Universal Tumour and Revision System (MUTARS®) in Lower Limb Endoprosthetic Revision Surgery - Outcome Analysis of 25 Patients].
    Schmolders J; Koob S; Schepers P; Gravius S; Wirtz DC; Burger C; Pennekamp PH; Strauss AC
    Z Orthop Unfall; 2017 Feb; 155(1):61-66. PubMed ID: 27632667
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cementation of a Dual Mobility Construct in Recurrently Dislocating and High Risk Patients Undergoing Revision Total Arthroplasty.
    Chalmers BP; Ledford CK; Taunton MJ; Sierra RJ; Lewallen DG; Trousdale RT
    J Arthroplasty; 2018 May; 33(5):1501-1506. PubMed ID: 29273288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of dual mobility cup and other surgical construts used for three hundred and sixty two first time hip revisions due to recurrent dislocations: five year results from Lithuanian arthroplasty register.
    Stucinskas J; Kalvaitis T; Smailys A; Robertsson O; Tarasevicius S
    Int Orthop; 2018 May; 42(5):1015-1020. PubMed ID: 29196791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Modular to Monoblock: Difficulties of Detaching the M(2)a-Magnum(TM) Head Are Common in Metal-on-metal Revisions.
    Mäntymäki H; Mäkelä KT; Vahlberg T; Hirviniemi J; Niinimäki T
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2016 Sep; 474(9):1999-2005. PubMed ID: 26940470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.