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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

242 related items for PubMed ID: 18823742

  • 1. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: the effect of cup position and component size on range of motion to impingement.
    Williams D, Royle M, Norton M.
    J Arthroplasty; 2009 Jan; 24(1):144-51. PubMed ID: 18823742
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Theoretically optimum position of the prosthesis in total hip arthroplasty to fulfill the severe range of motion criteria due to neck impingement.
    Hisatome T, Doi H.
    J Orthop Sci; 2011 Mar; 16(2):229-37. PubMed ID: 21359509
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head-neck ratios.
    D'Lima DD, Urquhart AG, Buehler KO, Walker RH, Colwell CW.
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2000 Mar; 82(3):315-21. PubMed ID: 10724224
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Compliant positioning of total hip components for optimal range of motion.
    Widmer KH, Zurfluh B.
    J Orthop Res; 2004 Jul; 22(4):815-21. PubMed ID: 15183439
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Impingement as a mechanism of dissociation of a metasul metal-on-metal liner.
    Malik A, Dorr LD, Long WT.
    J Arthroplasty; 2009 Feb; 24(2):323.e13-6. PubMed ID: 18562156
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Bony impingement affects range of motion after total hip arthroplasty: A subject-specific approach.
    Kessler O, Patil S, Wirth S, Mayr E, Colwell CW, D'Lima DD.
    J Orthop Res; 2008 Apr; 26(4):443-52. PubMed ID: 18050356
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Analysis of optimal range of socket orientations in total hip arthroplasty with use of computer-aided design simulation.
    Seki M, Yuasa N, Ohkuni K.
    J Orthop Res; 1998 Jul; 16(4):513-7. PubMed ID: 9747795
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Acetabular Cup Anteversion and Inclination in Hip Range of Motion to Impingement.
    McCarthy TF, Alipit V, Nevelos J, Elmallah RK, Mont MA.
    J Arthroplasty; 2016 Sep; 31(9 Suppl):264-8. PubMed ID: 27067753
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Effect of acetabular component anteversion on dislocation mechanisms in total hip arthroplasty.
    Higa M, Tanino H, Abo M, Kakunai S, Banks SA.
    J Biomech; 2011 Jun 03; 44(9):1810-3. PubMed ID: 21529811
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Femoral head to neck offset after hip resurfacing is critical for range of motion.
    Girard J, Krantz N, Bocquet D, Wavreille G, Migaud H.
    Clin Biomech (Bristol); 2012 Feb 03; 27(2):165-9. PubMed ID: 21925779
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. The effect of acetabular cup orientations on limiting hip rotation.
    Kummer FJ, Shah S, Iyer S, DiCesare PE.
    J Arthroplasty; 1999 Jun 03; 14(4):509-13. PubMed ID: 10428235
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Strict component positioning is necessary in hip resurfacing.
    Kajino Y, Kabata T, Maeda T, Iwai S, Kuroda K, Fujita K, Tsuchiya H.
    J Orthop Sci; 2013 Mar 03; 18(2):290-7. PubMed ID: 23315180
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Hip flexion after Birmingham hip resurfacing: role of cup anteversion, anterior femoral head-neck offset, and head-neck ratio.
    Malviya A, Lingard EA, Malik A, Bowman R, Holland JP.
    J Arthroplasty; 2010 Apr 03; 25(3):387-91. PubMed ID: 19285379
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. [Radiologic evaluation of cup placement variation in conventional total hip arthroplasty].
    Leichtle U, Gosselke N, Wirth CJ, Rudert M.
    Rofo; 2007 Jan 03; 179(1):46-52. PubMed ID: 17203443
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Differences in range of motion with the same combined anteversion after total hip arthroplasty.
    Ohmori T, Kabata T, Kajino Y, Taga T, Hasegawa K, Inoue D, Yamamoto T, Takagi T, Yoshitani J, Ueno T, Tsuchiya H.
    Int Orthop; 2018 May 03; 42(5):1021-1028. PubMed ID: 28990125
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Computational modelling of hip resurfacing arthroplasty investigating the effect of femoral version on hip biomechanics.
    Bourget-Murray J, Taneja A, Naserkhaki S, El-Rich M, Adeeb S, Powell J, Johnston K.
    PLoS One; 2021 May 03; 16(5):e0252435. PubMed ID: 34043721
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. The Impingement-free, Prosthesis-specific, and Anatomy-adjusted Combined Target Zone for Component Positioning in THA Depends on Design and Implantation Parameters of both Components.
    Widmer KH.
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2020 Aug 03; 478(8):1904-1918. PubMed ID: 32732575
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Less range of motion with resurfacing arthroplasty than with total hip arthroplasty: in vitro examination of 8 designs.
    Bengs BC, Sangiorgio SN, Ebramzadeh E.
    Acta Orthop; 2008 Dec 03; 79(6):755-62. PubMed ID: 19085491
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 13.