Header Logo

Connection

Wayne Paprosky to Female

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Wayne Paprosky has written about Female.
Wayne Paprosky
Connection Strength
1.280
Female
  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: 0.055
  2. Painful Hip Arthroplasty: What Should We Find? Diagnostic Approach and Results. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Aug; 34(8):1802-1807.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  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: 0.051
  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: 0.049
  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: 0.046
  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: 0.040
  7. 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: 0.039
  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: 0.035
  9. 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: 0.034
  10. 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: 0.033
  11. Patient perception of physician reimbursement in elective total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 May; 27(5):703-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  12. 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: 0.028
  13. 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: 0.025
  14. Use of the extended trochanteric osteotomy in treating prosthetic hip infection. J Arthroplasty. 2009 Jan; 24(1):49-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.024
  15. 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: 0.024
  16. 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: 0.024
  17. 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: 0.024
  18. Preoperative testing for sepsis before revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Sep; 22(6 Suppl 2):90-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  19. The treatment of pelvic discontinuity with acetabular cages. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Dec; 453:183-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
  20. 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: 0.021
  21. 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: 0.021
  22. 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: 0.021
  23. 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: 0.021
  24. The treatment of acetabular bone defects with an associated pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec; 441:216-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  25. 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: 0.020
  26. 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: 0.019
  27. 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: 0.019
  28. 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: 0.018
  29. Controlled femoral fracture: easy in. J Arthroplasty. 2003 Apr; 18(3 Suppl 1):91-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  30. 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: 0.017
  31. Component removal in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec; (393):181-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  32. 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: 0.015
  33. 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: 0.014
  34. 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: 0.013
  35. Midlevel Providers in Orthopaedic Surgery: The Patient's Perspective. Iowa Orthop J. 2019; 39(1):211-216.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  36. 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: 0.012
  37. 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: 0.012
  38. High Rate of Failure After Revision of a Constrained Liner. J Arthroplasty. 2018 07; 33(7S):S186-S190.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  39. 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: 0.012
  40. Extensively coated femoral components in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Nov; (344):263-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  41. Do Porous Tantalum Metaphyseal Cones Improve Outcomes in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2018 01; 33(1):171-177.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  42. 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: 0.011
  43. Five to 14-year follow up on cementless femoral revisions. Orthopedics. 1996 Sep; 19(9):765-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  44. Dual-Mobility Articulations for Patients at High Risk for Dislocation. J Arthroplasty. 2016 09; 31(9 Suppl):131-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  45. 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: 0.010
  46. 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: 0.010
  47. Extended proximal femoral osteotomy. A new technique for femoral revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995 Jun; 10(3):329-38.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  48. 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: 0.010
  49. Total acetabular transplant allograft reconstruction of the severely deficient acetabulum. Semin Arthroplasty. 1995 Apr; 6(2):86-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  50. 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: 0.010
  51. Femoral reconstruction with massive allograft and cementless prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):313-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  52. Acetabular reconstruction with massive allograft and cementless prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):379-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  53. 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: 0.009
  54. Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jan; (298):147-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  55. 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: 0.009
  56. Utility of trephine reamers in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan; 29(1):210-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  57. 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: 0.008
  58. Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb; 471(2):410-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  59. 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: 0.008
  60. 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: 0.008
  61. 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: 0.008
  62. 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: 0.008
  63. Classification and management of the unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 May; 27(5):710-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  64. 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: 0.007
  65. 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: 0.007
  66. 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: 0.005
  67. What would you do? Case challenges in hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun; 20(4 Suppl 2):98-104.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  68. Rapid rehabilitation and recovery with minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec; (429):239-47.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  69. 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: 0.005
  70. 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: 0.004
  71. 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: 0.004
  72. Surgical treatment of pelvic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec; (393):78-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  73. Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a long-stem cementless component. J Arthroplasty. 2001 Apr; 16(3):379-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  74. Patients' perception of pain after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000 Aug; 15(5):590-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  75. 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: 0.003
  76. 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: 0.003
  77. Femoral strut allografts in cementless revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Oct; (295):172-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  78. 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: 0.002
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.