Header Logo

Connection

Wayne Paprosky to Hip Prosthesis

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Wayne Paprosky has written about Hip Prosthesis.
Wayne Paprosky
Connection Strength
10.746
Hip Prosthesis
  1. 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: 0.538
  2. 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: 0.450
  3. Painful Hip Arthroplasty: What Should We Find? Diagnostic Approach and Results. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Aug; 34(8):1802-1807.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.445
  4. 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: 0.443
  5. 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: 0.422
  6. Evaluation and management of chronic total hip instability. Bone Joint J. 2016 Jan; 98-B(1 Suppl A):44-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.355
  7. 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: 0.327
  8. 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: 0.305
  9. 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: 0.303
  10. 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: 0.285
  11. 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: 0.270
  12. 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: 0.213
  13. Use of the extended trochanteric osteotomy in treating prosthetic hip infection. J Arthroplasty. 2009 Jan; 24(1):49-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.208
  14. 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: 0.206
  15. Extended trochanteric osteotomy for the treatment of vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures of the femur. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Jun; 23(4):527-33.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.206
  16. 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: 0.182
  17. 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: 0.174
  18. Extensively coated cementless femoral components in revision total hip arthoplasty: an update. Surg Technol Int. 2005; 14:265-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.165
  19. 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: 0.165
  20. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Dec; (417):203-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.153
  21. 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: 0.151
  22. 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: 0.149
  23. Cemented stem failure requires extended trochanteric osteotomy. Orthopedics. 2003 Jan; 26(1):28, 38.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.144
  24. 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: 0.143
  25. Porous coated femoral fixation: the long and short of it. Orthopedics. 2002 Sep; 25(9):941-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.141
  26. 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: 0.140
  27. Removal of well-fixed femoral and acetabular components. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2002 Aug; 31(8):476-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.140
  28. 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: 0.138
  29. Preoperative recognition of acetabular defects: paths of reason. Orthopedics. 2000 Sep; 23(9):959-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.123
  30. 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: 0.119
  31. 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: 0.117
  32. 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: 0.116
  33. Cementless femoral design concerns. Rationale for extensive porous coating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Oct; (355):189-99.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.107
  34. 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: 0.107
  35. High Rate of Failure After Revision of a Constrained Liner. J Arthroplasty. 2018 07; 33(7S):S186-S190.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.104
  36. Osteolysis: surgical treatment. Instr Course Lect. 1998; 47:321-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.102
  37. Extensively coated femoral components in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Nov; (344):263-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.101
  38. Cementless sockets: optimums and outcomes. Orthopedics. 1997 Sep; 20(9):777-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.100
  39. 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: 0.096
  40. Five to 14-year follow up on cementless femoral revisions. Orthopedics. 1996 Sep; 19(9):765-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.093
  41. Dual-Mobility Articulations for Patients at High Risk for Dislocation. J Arthroplasty. 2016 09; 31(9 Suppl):131-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.090
  42. Acetabular reconstruction with massive acetabular allografts. Instr Course Lect. 1996; 45:149-59.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.089
  43. 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: 0.086
  44. Extended proximal femoral osteotomy. A new technique for femoral revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995 Jun; 10(3):329-38.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.085
  45. Removal of a well-fixed cementless femoral component with an extended proximal femoral osteotomy. Contemp Orthop. 1995 May; 30(5):375-80.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.085
  46. Acetabular defect classification: a detailed radiographic approach. Semin Arthroplasty. 1995 Apr; 6(2):76-85.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.084
  47. Total acetabular transplant allograft reconstruction of the severely deficient acetabulum. Semin Arthroplasty. 1995 Apr; 6(2):86-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.084
  48. 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: 0.083
  49. Do serologic and synovial tests help diagnose infection in revision hip arthroplasty with metal-on-metal bearings or corrosion? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Feb; 473(2):498-505.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.083
  50. 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: 0.082
  51. Classification of bone defects in failed prostheses. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):285-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.081
  52. Femoral reconstruction with massive allograft and cementless prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):313-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.081
  53. Acetabular reconstruction with massive allograft and cementless prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):379-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.081
  54. Hip revision surgery with cemented, cementless or hybrid prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):415-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.081
  55. Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. 1994 Feb; 9(1):33-44.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.078
  56. Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jan; (298):147-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.077
  57. Maximizing function and outcomes in acetabular reconstruction: segmental bony defects and pelvic discontinuity. Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63:187-97.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.077
  58. Utility of trephine reamers in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan; 29(1):210-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.074
  59. 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: 0.073
  60. Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb; 471(2):410-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.072
  61. 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: 0.071
  62. 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: 0.071
  63. 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: 0.070
  64. Classification and management of the unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 May; 27(5):710-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  65. 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: 0.061
  66. 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: 0.060
  67. Threaded cup acetabuloplasty. Early clinical experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Apr; (241):183-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.056
  68. 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: 0.052
  69. Biologic fixation and bone ingrowth. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005 Jan; 36(1):105-11, vii.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.041
  70. 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: 0.035
  71. Patients' perception of pain after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000 Aug; 15(5):590-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.030
  72. 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: 0.029
  73. 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: 0.026
  74. Bypass fixation. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998 Apr; 29(2):319-29.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  75. 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: 0.025
  76. 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: 0.024
  77. Advances in acetabular osteolysis: biomarkers, imaging, and pharmacologic management. Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63:177-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  78. 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: 0.019
  79. 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: 0.019
  80. Femoral strut allografts in cementless revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Oct; (295):172-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  81. Acetabular micromotion as a measure of initial implant stability in primary hip arthroplasty. An in vitro comparison of different methods of initial acetabular component fixation. J Arthroplasty. 1992 Dec; 7(4):537-47.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  82. What would you do? Case challenges in hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun; 20(4 Suppl 2):98-104.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  83. Rapid rehabilitation and recovery with minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec; (429):239-47.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  84. Surgical treatment of pelvic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec; (393):78-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  85. 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: 0.007
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.