Header Logo

Connection

Wayne Paprosky to Middle Aged

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Wayne Paprosky has written about Middle Aged.
Wayne Paprosky
Connection Strength
1.458
Middle Aged
  1. Epidemiology of painful knee after total knee arthroplasty in a tertiary care center: Assessment by decision tree. Knee. 2020 Jun; 27(3):1049-1056.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  2. Painful Hip Arthroplasty: What Should We Find? Diagnostic Approach and Results. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Aug; 34(8):1802-1807.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  3. 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: 0.064
  4. 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: 0.060
  5. 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: 0.057
  6. 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: 0.050
  7. Patient perception of physician reimbursement in elective total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 May; 27(5):703-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.039
  8. Modified hybrid stem fixation in revision TKA is durable at 2 to 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Mar; 469(3):839-46.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  9. 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: 0.031
  10. Use of the extended trochanteric osteotomy in treating prosthetic hip infection. J Arthroplasty. 2009 Jan; 24(1):49-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.030
  11. 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: 0.030
  12. 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: 0.030
  13. 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: 0.029
  14. Preoperative testing for sepsis before revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Sep; 22(6 Suppl 2):90-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  15. 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: 0.027
  16. 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: 0.027
  17. 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: 0.026
  18. 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: 0.026
  19. The treatment of acetabular bone defects with an associated pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec; 441:216-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  20. 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: 0.025
  21. 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: 0.024
  22. 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: 0.024
  23. 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: 0.022
  24. Controlled femoral fracture: easy in. J Arthroplasty. 2003 Apr; 18(3 Suppl 1):91-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  25. 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: 0.021
  26. 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: 0.020
  27. Component removal in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec; (393):181-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  28. Extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2001 Sep; 24(9):871-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  29. Early outcomes of a modern cemented total knee arthroplasty : is tibial loosening a concern? Bone Joint J. 2021 Jun; 103-B(6 Supple A):51-58.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  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: 0.017
  31. 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: 0.017
  32. Midlevel Providers in Orthopaedic Surgery: The Patient's Perspective. Iowa Orthop J. 2019; 39(1):211-216.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  33. Cementless femoral design concerns. Rationale for extensive porous coating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Oct; (355):189-99.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  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: 0.015
  35. 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: 0.015
  36. High Rate of Failure After Revision of a Constrained Liner. J Arthroplasty. 2018 07; 33(7S):S186-S190.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  37. 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: 0.015
  38. Extensively coated femoral components in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Nov; (344):263-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  39. Do Porous Tantalum Metaphyseal Cones Improve Outcomes in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2018 01; 33(1):171-177.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  40. 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: 0.014
  41. Five to 14-year follow up on cementless femoral revisions. Orthopedics. 1996 Sep; 19(9):765-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  42. Dual-Mobility Articulations for Patients at High Risk for Dislocation. J Arthroplasty. 2016 09; 31(9 Suppl):131-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  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: 0.012
  44. The Use of Trabecular Metal Cones in Complex Primary and Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015 Sep; 30(9 Suppl):90-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  45. Extended proximal femoral osteotomy. A new technique for femoral revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995 Jun; 10(3):329-38.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  46. 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: 0.012
  47. Total acetabular transplant allograft reconstruction of the severely deficient acetabulum. Semin Arthroplasty. 1995 Apr; 6(2):86-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  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: 0.012
  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: 0.012
  50. Femoral reconstruction with massive allograft and cementless prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):313-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  51. Acetabular reconstruction with massive allograft and cementless prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):379-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  52. 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: 0.011
  53. Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jan; (298):147-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  54. 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: 0.011
  55. Utility of trephine reamers in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan; 29(1):210-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  56. 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: 0.010
  57. Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb; 471(2):410-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  58. 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: 0.010
  59. 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: 0.010
  60. 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: 0.010
  61. Classification and management of the unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 May; 27(5):710-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  62. 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: 0.009
  63. 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: 0.009
  64. Threaded cup acetabuloplasty. Early clinical experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Apr; (241):183-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  65. Minimally invasive quadriceps-sparing TKA: results of a comprehensive pathway for outpatient TKA. J Knee Surg. 2006 Apr; 19(2):145-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  66. What would you do? Case challenges in hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun; 20(4 Suppl 2):98-104.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  67. Rapid rehabilitation and recovery with minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec; (429):239-47.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  68. Extensor mechanism allograft reconstruction after total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of two techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Dec; 86(12):2694-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  69. 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: 0.005
  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: 0.005
  71. Surgical treatment of pelvic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec; (393):78-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  72. Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a long-stem cementless component. J Arthroplasty. 2001 Apr; 16(3):379-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  73. Patients' perception of pain after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000 Aug; 15(5):590-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  74. High rate of failure of allograft reconstruction of the extensor mechanism after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Nov; 81(11):1574-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  75. 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: 0.004
  76. 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: 0.004
  77. 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: 0.004
  78. Femoral strut allografts in cementless revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Oct; (295):172-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  79. 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: 0.003
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.