Header Logo

Connection

Wayne Paprosky to Reoperation

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Wayne Paprosky has written about Reoperation.
Wayne Paprosky
Connection Strength
6.235
Reoperation
  1. Medium term clinical outcomes of tibial cones in revision knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Jan; 141(1):113-118.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.534
  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: 0.456
  3. 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: 0.427
  4. 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: 0.266
  5. 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: 0.223
  6. 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: 0.145
  7. 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: 0.126
  8. Painful Hip Arthroplasty: What Should We Find? Diagnostic Approach and Results. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Aug; 34(8):1802-1807.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.120
  9. 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: 0.120
  10. High Rate of Failure After Revision of a Constrained Liner. J Arthroplasty. 2018 07; 33(7S):S186-S190.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.112
  11. Do Porous Tantalum Metaphyseal Cones Improve Outcomes in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2018 01; 33(1):171-177.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.107
  12. Dual-Mobility Articulations for Patients at High Risk for Dislocation. J Arthroplasty. 2016 09; 31(9 Suppl):131-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.097
  13. 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: 0.095
  14. 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: 0.092
  15. 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: 0.091
  16. 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: 0.088
  17. 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: 0.088
  18. 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: 0.082
  19. 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: 0.082
  20. One-stage vs two-stage exchange. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Feb; 29(2 Suppl):108-11.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.082
  21. 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: 0.082
  22. 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: 0.079
  23. 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: 0.079
  24. 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: 0.077
  25. 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: 0.077
  26. 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: 0.073
  27. 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: 0.058
  28. 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: 0.056
  29. 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: 0.056
  30. Preoperative testing for sepsis before revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Sep; 22(6 Suppl 2):90-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.053
  31. 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: 0.050
  32. 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: 0.050
  33. 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: 0.049
  34. The treatment of acetabular bone defects with an associated pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec; 441:216-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.048
  35. 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: 0.047
  36. The treatment of pelvic discontinuity during acetabular revision. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun; 20(4 Suppl 2):79-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  37. 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: 0.045
  38. Extensively coated cementless femoral components in revision total hip arthoplasty: an update. Surg Technol Int. 2005; 14:265-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.045
  39. 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: 0.044
  40. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Mar; (420):55-62.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  41. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Dec; (417):203-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.041
  42. 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: 0.041
  43. 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: 0.040
  44. Cemented stem failure requires extended trochanteric osteotomy. Orthopedics. 2003 Jan; 26(1):28, 38.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.039
  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: 0.039
  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: 0.039
  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: 0.038
  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: 0.038
  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: 0.038
  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: 0.038
  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: 0.037
  52. Component removal in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec; (393):181-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  53. Extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2001 Sep; 24(9):871-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  54. 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: 0.035
  55. Preoperative recognition of acetabular defects: paths of reason. Orthopedics. 2000 Sep; 23(9):959-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  56. 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: 0.032
  57. Hip replacement: treatment of femoral bone loss using distal bypass fixation. Instr Course Lect. 2000; 49:119-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  58. 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: 0.031
  59. 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: 0.031
  60. Total acetabular allografts. Instr Course Lect. 1999; 48:67-76.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  61. Cementless femoral design concerns. Rationale for extensive porous coating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Oct; (355):189-99.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  62. 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: 0.029
  63. Bypass fixation. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998 Apr; 29(2):319-29.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  64. Osteolysis: surgical treatment. Instr Course Lect. 1998; 47:321-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  65. 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: 0.027
  66. Extensively coated femoral components in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Nov; (344):263-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  67. Cementless sockets: optimums and outcomes. Orthopedics. 1997 Sep; 20(9):777-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  68. Prevention and Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Knee Infection. Instr Course Lect. 2017 Feb 15; 66:223-233.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  69. Single-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Setting of Periprosthetic Knee Infection: Indications, Contraindications, and Postoperative Outcomes. Instr Course Lect. 2017 Feb 15; 66:235-247.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  70. Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Setting of Periprosthetic Knee Infection. Instr Course Lect. 2017 Feb 15; 66:249-262.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  71. 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: 0.026
  72. Five to 14-year follow up on cementless femoral revisions. Orthopedics. 1996 Sep; 19(9):765-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  73. Acetabular reconstruction with massive acetabular allografts. Instr Course Lect. 1996; 45:149-59.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.024
  74. 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: 0.023
  75. Extended proximal femoral osteotomy. A new technique for femoral revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995 Jun; 10(3):329-38.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  76. 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: 0.023
  77. Acetabular defect classification: a detailed radiographic approach. Semin Arthroplasty. 1995 Apr; 6(2):76-85.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  78. Total acetabular transplant allograft reconstruction of the severely deficient acetabulum. Semin Arthroplasty. 1995 Apr; 6(2):86-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  79. 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: 0.022
  80. Femoral reconstruction with massive allograft and cementless prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):313-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
  81. Acetabular reconstruction with massive allograft and cementless prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):379-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
  82. Hip revision surgery with cemented, cementless or hybrid prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):415-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
  83. 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: 0.021
  84. Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jan; (298):147-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  85. One-stage versus two-stage exchange. J Orthop Res. 2014 Jan; 32 Suppl 1:S141-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  86. Maximizing function and outcomes in acetabular reconstruction: segmental bony defects and pelvic discontinuity. Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63:187-97.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  87. 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: 0.021
  88. 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: 0.021
  89. Utility of trephine reamers in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan; 29(1):210-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  90. Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb; 471(2):410-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  91. 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: 0.019
  92. 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: 0.019
  93. 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: 0.019
  94. Classification and management of the unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 May; 27(5):710-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  95. 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: 0.017
  96. 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: 0.016
  97. 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: 0.014
  98. Managing bone loss in acetabular revision. Instr Course Lect. 2006; 55:287-97.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  99. 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: 0.011
  100. Use of structural allografts in acetabular revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Mar; (420):113-21.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  101. Surgical treatment of pelvic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec; (393):78-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  102. Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a long-stem cementless component. J Arthroplasty. 2001 Apr; 16(3):379-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  103. 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: 0.008
  104. Extended proximal femoral osteotomy. Instr Course Lect. 1999; 48:19-26.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  105. 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: 0.007
  106. 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: 0.007
  107. Femoral strut allografts in cementless revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Oct; (295):172-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
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.