Hip disease and the prognosis of total hip replacements (original) (raw)
The type of cement and failure of total hip replacements
Ove Furnes
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 2002
View PDFchevron_right
18 years of results with cemented primary hip prostheses in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register
Ove Furnes
Acta Orthopaedica, 2009
View PDFchevron_right
The charnley versus the spectron hip prosthesis: Clinical evaluation of a randomized, prospective study of 2 different hip implants
Göran Garellick
1999
View PDFchevron_right
Functional Outcome, Revision Rates and Mortality after Primary Total Hip Replacement – A National Comparison of Nine Prosthesis Brands in England
Richard Grieve
PLoS ONE, 2013
View PDFchevron_right
Survivorship analysis of 1,041 charnley total hip arthroplasties
Richard Balderston
The Journal of Arthroplasty, 1990
View PDFchevron_right
Exeter and Charnley arthroplasties with Boneloc or high viscosity cement: Comparison of 1, 127 arthroplasties followed for 5 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register
Ove Furnes
Acta Orthopaedica, 1997
View PDFchevron_right
20-Year Results of McKee-Farrar Versus Charnley Prosthesis
Ola Wahlström
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 1996
View PDFchevron_right
Survivorship of hip prosthesis in primary arthrosis
Pekka Pulkkinen
Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica, 2002
View PDFchevron_right
Have cementless and resurfacing components improved the medium-term results of hip replacement for patients under 60 years of age?
S. Jameson, Martyn Porter
Acta orthopaedica, 2015
View PDFchevron_right
Prosthesis Selection
Thomas Schaer
The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2014
View PDFchevron_right
Prosthesis survival after total hip arthroplasty—does surgical approach matter? Analysis of 19,304 Charnley and 6,002 Exeter primary total hip arthroplasties reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register
Ove Furnes, Jon Arne Søreide
Acta Orthopaedica, 2007
View PDFchevron_right
The charnley versus the spectron hip prosthesis
Henrik Malchau
Journal of Arthroplasty - J ARTHROPLASTY, 1999
View PDFchevron_right
Cumulative revision rate with the Scan Hip® Classic I total hip prosthesis: 1,660 cases followed for 2-12 years
Hans Wingstrand
Acta Orthopaedica, 1998
View PDFchevron_right
The type of surgical approach influences the risk of revision in total hip arthroplasty
Göran Garellick, Viktor Lindgren, Johan Kärrholm
Acta Orthopaedica, 2012
View PDFchevron_right
Prognosis of total hip replacement
Henrik Malchau
Acta Orthopaedica, 1990
View PDFchevron_right
Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register
Göran Garellick
Acta Orthopaedica, 2010
View PDFchevron_right
Long-term results of cemented total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 30 years and the outcome of subsequent revisions
Jean Gardeniers
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2013
View PDFchevron_right
Is cemented metal-polyethylene 22.2mm hip arthroplasty a gold standard? Results of a series of 105 primary arthroplasties at a minimum of ten years follow-up
Laurent Vasseur
Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR, 2014
View PDFchevron_right
Resurfacing hip prostheses revisited
Rob Nelissen
International Orthopaedics, 2005
View PDFchevron_right
Anatomical and Functional Preliminary Results of Total Non-Cemented Hip Prostheses
Abdoul Wahab
Open Journal of Orthopedics, 2017
View PDFchevron_right
Fixation, sex, and age: highest risk of revision for uncemented stems in elderly women — data from 66,995 primary total hip arthroplasties in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register
Anne Marie Fenstad
Acta Orthopaedica
View PDFchevron_right
Total hip arthroplasty for failed aseptic Austin Moore prosthesis
Pradeep Bhosale
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 2012
View PDFchevron_right
60 years of Charnley–Muller Alivium hip prosthesis: the revision percentage and tribo-corrosion sequelae after a mean of 27 years
Vesna Levasic
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 2023
View PDFchevron_right
A modular cementless stem vs. cemented long-stem prostheses in revision surgery of the hip
André Stark
Acta Orthopaedica, 2011
View PDFchevron_right
Good results with cemented total hip arthroplasty in patients between 40 and 50 years of age
Jean Gardeniers
Acta Orthopaedica, 2010
View PDFchevron_right
Clinical experience with a proximally porous-coated second-generation cementless total hip prosthesis: Minimum 5-year follow-up
K. Krackow, David Hungerford
The Journal of Arthroplasty, 1999
View PDFchevron_right
Study of Functional Results of Cemented Total Hip Replacement by Moore’s Approach
Arunim Swarup
Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare, 2016
View PDFchevron_right
Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register: Evaluation of 170,413 operations
Johan Kärrholm
Acta Orthopaedica, 2010
View PDFchevron_right
High revision rate after treatment of femoral neck fractures with an optionally (un)cemented stem
Marieke Struijk-mulder
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 2009
View PDFchevron_right
Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Cemented, Uncemented, and Hybrid Total Hip Arthroplasties
İzzet korkmaz
Medical journal of islamic world academy of sciences, 2020
View PDFchevron_right
Stanmore Compared with Charnley Total Hip Replacement
G. Bentley
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 1996
View PDFchevron_right
Cementless revision of total hip arthroplasty using the anatomic porous replacement revision prosthesis
Lawrence Dorr
The Journal of Arthroplasty, 1997
View PDFchevron_right
Furlong Hydroxyapatite-Coated Hip Prosthesis vs the Charnley Cemented Hip Prosthesis
Prakash Chandran
The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2010
View PDFchevron_right
Long-term results of cemented total hip arthroplasty in patients 45 years old or younger
Lawrence Dorr
The Journal of Arthroplasty, 1994
View PDFchevron_right
Cementless jumbo cups for revision of failed Furlong prosthesis. A case series
ahmed Kotb
View PDFchevron_right