Header Logo

Connection

Wayne Paprosky to Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Wayne Paprosky has written about Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip.
Wayne Paprosky
Connection Strength
13.331
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
  1. Radiographic measurement of leg-length change in the nonoperative leg during total hip arthroplasty: a potential indicator of imaging error? Hip Int. 2023 Sep; 33(5):858-863.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.477
  2. Management of Severe Acetabular Bone Loss With Chronic Pelvic Discontinuity in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2022; 71:19-26.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.444
  3. Acetabular Distraction Technique for Severe Acetabular Bone Loss and Chronic Pelvic Discontinuity: An Advanced Course. Instr Course Lect. 2020; 69:35-42.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.386
  4. Response to Letter to the Editor on "Unexplained Painful Hip Arthroplasty: What Should We Find? Diagnostic Approach and Results". J Arthroplasty. 2019 09; 34(9):2196.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.372
  5. Painful Hip Arthroplasty: What Should We Find? Diagnostic Approach and Results. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Aug; 34(8):1802-1807.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.368
  6. Evaluation and Treatment of Patients With Acetabular Osteolysis After Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019 Mar 15; 27(6):e258-e267.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.366
  7. Two-centre radiological survivorship of acetabular distraction technique for treatment of chronic pelvic discontinuity: mean five-year follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2018 07; 100-B(7):909-914.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.348
  8. Are Revision Hip Arthroplasty Patients at Higher Risk for Venous Thromboembolic Events Than Primary Hip Arthroplasty Patients? J Arthroplasty. 2017 12; 32(12):3752-3756.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.326
  9. The Use of Structural Distal Femoral Allograft for Acetabular Reconstruction of Paprosky Type IIIA Defects at a Mean 21 Years of Follow-Up. J Arthroplasty. 2016 Mar; 31(3):680-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.289
  10. Management of severe femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2015 Jul; 46(3):329-42, ix.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.279
  11. Acetabular distraction: an alternative for severe acetabular bone loss and chronic pelvic discontinuity. Bone Joint J. 2014 Nov; 96-B(11 Supple A):36-42.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.270
  12. Acetabular distraction: an alternative approach to pelvic discontinuity in failed total hip replacement. Bone Joint J. 2014 Nov; 96-B(11 Supple A):73-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.270
  13. Managing femoral bone loss in revision total hip replacement: fluted tapered modular stems. Bone Joint J. 2013 Nov; 95-B(11 Suppl A):95-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.252
  14. Femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013 Oct; 21(10):601-12.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.251
  15. Prevalence, risk factors, and management of proximal femoral remodeling in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013 May; 28(5):877-81.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.241
  16. Acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013 Mar; 21(3):128-39.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.241
  17. Massive bone loss: allograft-prosthetic composites and beyond. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Nov; 94(11 Suppl A):61-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.235
  18. Tantalum augments for Paprosky IIIA defects remain stable at midterm followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Feb; 470(2):395-401.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.223
  19. Patient perception of physician reimbursement in elective total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 May; 27(5):703-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.223
  20. Perioperative testing for joint infection in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Sep; 90(9):1869-75.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.176
  21. Use of the extended trochanteric osteotomy in treating prosthetic hip infection. J Arthroplasty. 2009 Jan; 24(1):49-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.171
  22. The use of a tripolar articulation in revision total hip arthroplasty: a minimum of 24 months' follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Dec; 23(8):1182-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.170
  23. Management of severe bone loss in acetabular revision using a trabecular metal shell. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Oct; 23(7):949-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.170
  24. Addressing severe bone deficiency: what a cage will not do. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Jun; 22(4 Suppl 1):111-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.162
  25. The treatment of pelvic discontinuity with acetabular cages. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Dec; 453:183-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.156
  26. The use of a trabecular metal acetabular component and trabecular metal augment for severe acetabular defects. J Arthroplasty. 2006 Sep; 21(6 Suppl 2):83-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.153
  27. Acetabular revision using a trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with a pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty. 2006 Sep; 21(6 Suppl 2):87-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.153
  28. Porous-ingrowth revision acetabular implants secured with peripheral screws. A minimum twelve-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jun; 88(6):1266-71.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.151
  29. Constrained liners in revision total hip arthroplasty: an overuse syndrome: in the affirmative. J Arthroplasty. 2006 Jun; 21(4 Suppl 1):121-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.151
  30. The use of structural distal femoral allografts for acetabular reconstruction. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Mar; 88 Suppl 1 Pt 1:92-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.148
  31. The treatment of acetabular bone defects with an associated pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec; 441:216-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.146
  32. Posterior approach: back door in. Orthopedics. 2005 Sep; 28(9):931-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.143
  33. The treatment of pelvic discontinuity during acetabular revision. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun; 20(4 Suppl 2):79-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.141
  34. The use of structural distal femoral allografts for acetabular reconstruction. Average ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Apr; 87(4):760-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.139
  35. Biologic fixation and bone ingrowth. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005 Jan; 36(1):105-11, vii.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.137
  36. Extensively coated cementless femoral components in revision total hip arthoplasty: an update. Surg Technol Int. 2005; 14:265-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.137
  37. Femoral fixation in the face of considerable bone loss: the use of modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec; (429):227-31.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.136
  38. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Mar; (420):55-62.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.129
  39. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Dec; (417):203-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.127
  40. Extended trochanteric osteotomy in complex primary total hip arthroplasty. A brief note. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Dec; 85(12):2385-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.127
  41. The Revision Acetabulum With a Hemispherical Shell and Modular Porous Metal Augments: Cup or Augment First? J Arthroplasty. 2023 Dec; 38(12):2476-2479.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.124
  42. Systematic Exposure in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: The Posterior Approach. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2023 Oct 01; 31(19):e736-e745.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.123
  43. Controlled femoral fracture: easy in. J Arthroplasty. 2003 Apr; 18(3 Suppl 1):91-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.121
  44. Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum associated with a total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2003; 52:281-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.119
  45. Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85-A Suppl 4:1-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.119
  46. The middle-aged patient with hip arthritis: the case for extensively coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Dec; (405):101-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.118
  47. Assessment and classification of bone stock deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2002 Aug; 31(8):459-64.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.116
  48. Extensively porous-coated femoral stems in revision hip arthroplasty: rationale and results. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2002 Aug; 31(8):471-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.116
  49. Removal of well-fixed femoral and acetabular components. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2002 Aug; 31(8):476-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.116
  50. Structural acetabular allograft in revision total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2002 Aug; 31(8):481-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.116
  51. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002 Jun; 17(4 Suppl 1):134-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.114
  52. Component removal in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec; (393):181-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.110
  53. Soft-Tissue Balancing in Total Hip Arthroplasty. JBJS Rev. 2021 02 15; 9(2):e20.00116.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.104
  54. Adverse Local Tissue Reaction due to Mechanically Assisted Crevice Corrosion Presenting as Late Instability Following Metal-on-Polyethylene Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020 09; 35(9):2666-2670.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.099
  55. Hip replacement: treatment of femoral bone loss using distal bypass fixation. Instr Course Lect. 2000; 49:119-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.097
  56. Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Dec; (369):230-42.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.096
  57. Outcomes of Isolated Head and Liner Exchange Using Large Femoral Heads and Modern Liners in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020 04; 35(4):1064-1068.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.096
  58. Total acetabular allografts. Instr Course Lect. 1999; 48:67-76.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.090
  59. Cementless femoral design concerns. Rationale for extensive porous coating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Oct; (355):189-99.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.089
  60. Distal fixation with fully coated stems in femoral revision: a 16-year follow-up. Orthopedics. 1998 Sep; 21(9):993-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.088
  61. Routine Use of Radiostereometric Analysis in Elective Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Patients: Surgical Impact, Safety, and Bead Stability. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 Apr 15; 26(8):e173-e180.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.086
  62. Bypass fixation. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998 Apr; 29(2):319-29.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.086
  63. High Rate of Failure After Revision of a Constrained Liner. J Arthroplasty. 2018 07; 33(7S):S186-S190.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.085
  64. 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty. 1997 Dec; 12(8):839-47.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.084
  65. Quantifying Pelvic Motion During Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a New Surgical Navigation Device. J Arthroplasty. 2017 10; 32(10):3056-3060.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.080
  66. Comparative survival analysis of porous tantalum and porous titanium acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2017 Sep 19; 27(5):505-508.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.079
  67. AAHKS Symposium: State-of-the-Art Management of Tough and Unsolved Problems in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016 09; 31(9 Suppl):7-15.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.076
  68. Dual-Mobility Articulations for Patients at High Risk for Dislocation. J Arthroplasty. 2016 09; 31(9 Suppl):131-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.074
  69. Modular tapered implants for severe femoral bone loss in THA: reliable osseointegration but frequent complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Feb; 473(2):555-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.069
  70. Advances in acetabular osteolysis: biomarkers, imaging, and pharmacologic management. Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63:177-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  71. Maximizing function and outcomes in acetabular reconstruction: segmental bony defects and pelvic discontinuity. Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63:187-97.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  72. Advances in acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty: maximizing function and outcomes after treatment of periacetabular osteolysis around the well-fixed shell. Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63:209-18.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  73. Acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty: maximizing function and outcomes in protrusio and cavitary defects. Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63:219-25.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  74. Effect of a second joint arthroplasty on metal ion levels after primary total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2013 Oct; 42(10):E84-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.063
  75. Advances in acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty: maximizing function and outcomes after treatment of periacetabular osteolysis around the well-fixed shell. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Sep 18; 95(18):1709-18.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.062
  76. Utility of trephine reamers in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan; 29(1):210-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  77. Ten-year outcome of serum metal ion levels after primary total hip arthroplasty: a concise follow-up of a previous report*. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Mar 20; 95(6):512-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.060
  78. Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb; 471(2):410-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.060
  79. Acetabular distraction: an alternative for severe defects with chronic pelvic discontinuity? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Nov; 470(11):3156-63.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.059
  80. What would you do?: challenges in hip surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Nov; 94(11 Suppl A):70-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.059
  81. Corrosion at the head-neck taper as a cause for adverse local tissue reactions after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Sep 19; 94(18):1655-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.058
  82. Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: causes and high incidence of early failure. Orthopedics. 2012 Jul 01; 35(7):e1009-16.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  83. The use of abduction bracing for the prevention of early postoperative dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 Sep; 27(8 Suppl):126-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.057
  84. Classification and management of the unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 May; 27(5):710-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.055
  85. Perioperative testing for persistent sepsis following resection arthroplasty of the hip for periprosthetic infection. J Arthroplasty. 2010 Sep; 25(6 Suppl):87-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  86. Do tantalum components provide adequate primary fixation in all acetabular revisions? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010 May; 96(3):235-41.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  87. How prevalent are implant wear and osteolysis, and how has the scope of osteolysis changed since 2000? J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008; 16 Suppl 1:S1-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  88. High failure rate of a constrained acetabular liner in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Oct; 20(7 Suppl 3):103-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  89. What would you do? Case challenges in hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun; 20(4 Suppl 2):98-104.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  90. Rapid rehabilitation and recovery with minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec; (429):239-47.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.034
  91. Use of structural allografts in acetabular revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Mar; (420):113-21.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  92. The early dislocation rate in primary total hip arthroplasty following the posterior approach with posterior soft-tissue repair. J Arthroplasty. 2003 Sep; 18(6):709-13.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  93. A multicenter retrieval study of the taper interfaces of modular hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Aug; (401):149-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  94. Surgical treatment of pelvic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec; (393):78-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  95. Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a long-stem cementless component. J Arthroplasty. 2001 Apr; 16(3):379-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  96. Patients' perception of pain after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000 Aug; 15(5):590-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  97. Extended proximal femoral osteotomy. Instr Course Lect. 1999; 48:19-26.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  98. A new classification system for the management of acetabular osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 1999; 48:37-42.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  99. Metal release in patients who have had a primary total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, controlled, longitudinal study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Oct; 80(10):1447-58.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
  100. Extensively coated femoral components in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Nov; (344):263-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  101. Treatment of pelvic osteolysis associated with a stable acetabular component inserted without cement as part of a total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Nov; 79(11):1628-34.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  102. Diagnosis and Management of Adverse Local Tissue Reactions Secondary to Corrosion at the Head-Neck Junction in Patients With Metal on Polyethylene Bearings. J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jan; 31(1):264-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  103. Managing bone loss in acetabular revision. Instr Course Lect. 2006; 55:287-97.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.