Header Logo

Connection

Wayne Paprosky to Acetabulum

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Wayne Paprosky has written about Acetabulum.
Wayne Paprosky
Connection Strength
9.175
Acetabulum
  1. 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: 0.582
  2. 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: 0.525
  3. 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: 0.436
  4. 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: 0.407
  5. 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: 0.407
  6. CORR Insights?: Validity and reliability of the Paprosky acetabular defect classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Jul; 471(7):2266.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.366
  7. 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: 0.363
  8. 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: 0.354
  9. 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: 0.337
  10. 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: 0.257
  11. Addressing severe bone deficiency: what a cage will not do. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Jun; 22(4 Suppl 1):111-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.243
  12. The treatment of pelvic discontinuity with acetabular cages. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Dec; 453:183-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.235
  13. 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: 0.231
  14. 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: 0.231
  15. 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: 0.227
  16. 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: 0.223
  17. The treatment of acetabular bone defects with an associated pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec; 441:216-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.219
  18. The treatment of pelvic discontinuity during acetabular revision. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun; 20(4 Suppl 2):79-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.212
  19. 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: 0.210
  20. Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum associated with a total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2003; 52:281-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.179
  21. 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: 0.174
  22. Structural acetabular allograft in revision total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2002 Aug; 31(8):481-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.174
  23. 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: 0.167
  24. Preoperative recognition of acetabular defects: paths of reason. Orthopedics. 2000 Sep; 23(9):959-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.153
  25. 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: 0.138
  26. Total acetabular allografts. Instr Course Lect. 1999; 48:67-76.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.136
  27. 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: 0.119
  28. Acetabular reconstruction with massive acetabular allografts. Instr Course Lect. 1996; 45:149-59.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.110
  29. Acetabular defect classification: a detailed radiographic approach. Semin Arthroplasty. 1995 Apr; 6(2):76-85.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.105
  30. Total acetabular transplant allograft reconstruction of the severely deficient acetabulum. Semin Arthroplasty. 1995 Apr; 6(2):86-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.105
  31. Acetabular reconstruction with massive allograft and cementless prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):379-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.101
  32. 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: 0.097
  33. Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jan; (298):147-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.096
  34. Advances in acetabular osteolysis: biomarkers, imaging, and pharmacologic management. Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63:177-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.096
  35. Maximizing function and outcomes in acetabular reconstruction: segmental bony defects and pelvic discontinuity. Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63:187-97.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.096
  36. 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: 0.096
  37. 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: 0.096
  38. 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: 0.094
  39. 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: 0.074
  40. Threaded cup acetabuloplasty. Early clinical experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Apr; (241):183-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.069
  41. Managing bone loss in acetabular revision. Instr Course Lect. 2006; 55:287-97.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.055
  42. 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: 0.054
  43. Use of structural allografts in acetabular revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Mar; (420):113-21.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  44. 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: 0.047
  45. 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: 0.046
  46. Component removal in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec; (393):181-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  47. Soft-Tissue Balancing in Total Hip Arthroplasty. JBJS Rev. 2021 02 15; 9(2):e20.00116.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.039
  48. 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: 0.036
  49. 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: 0.034
  50. Osteolysis: surgical treatment. Instr Course Lect. 1998; 47:321-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  51. 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: 0.032
  52. Extensively coated femoral components in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Nov; (344):263-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  53. 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: 0.031
  54. Cementless sockets: optimums and outcomes. Orthopedics. 1997 Sep; 20(9):777-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  55. 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: 0.030
  56. Classification of bone defects in failed prostheses. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):285-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  57. What would you do? Case challenges in hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun; 20(4 Suppl 2):98-104.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  58. 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: 0.006
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.