Header Logo

Connection

Wayne Paprosky to Humans

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Wayne Paprosky has written about Humans.
Wayne Paprosky
Connection Strength
1.818
Humans
  1. Radiographic measurement of leg-length change in the nonoperative leg during total hip arthroplasty: a potential indicator of imaging error? Hip Int. 2023 Sep; 33(5):858-863.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.048
  2. 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: 0.045
  3. 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: 0.041
  4. 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: 0.040
  5. 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: 0.039
  6. Painful Hip Arthroplasty: What Should We Find? Diagnostic Approach and Results. J Arthroplasty. 2019 Aug; 34(8):1802-1807.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.037
  7. 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: 0.037
  8. 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: 0.035
  9. 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: 0.033
  10. Evaluation and management of chronic total hip instability. Bone Joint J. 2016 Jan; 98-B(1 Suppl A):44-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.030
  11. 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: 0.029
  12. 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: 0.028
  13. 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: 0.027
  14. 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: 0.027
  15. The inter-observer and intra-observer reliability of the Paprosky femoral bone loss classification system. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jul; 29(7):1482-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  16. 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: 0.025
  17. 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: 0.025
  18. CORR Insights?: Validity and reliability of the Paprosky acetabular defect classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Jul; 471(7):2266.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  19. 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: 0.024
  20. 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: 0.024
  21. 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: 0.024
  22. 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: 0.024
  23. 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: 0.023
  24. Patient perception of physician reimbursement in elective total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 May; 27(5):703-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
  25. 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: 0.021
  26. 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: 0.018
  27. Use of the extended trochanteric osteotomy in treating prosthetic hip infection. J Arthroplasty. 2009 Jan; 24(1):49-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  28. 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: 0.017
  29. 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: 0.017
  30. 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: 0.017
  31. Preoperative testing for sepsis before revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Sep; 22(6 Suppl 2):90-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  32. Porous tantalum in reconstructive surgery of the knee: a review. J Knee Surg. 2007 Jul; 20(3):185-94.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  33. Addressing severe bone deficiency: what a cage will not do. J Arthroplasty. 2007 Jun; 22(4 Suppl 1):111-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  34. The treatment of pelvic discontinuity with acetabular cages. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Dec; 453:183-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  35. 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: 0.015
  36. 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: 0.015
  37. 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: 0.015
  38. 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: 0.015
  39. 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: 0.015
  40. The treatment of acetabular bone defects with an associated pelvic discontinuity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec; 441:216-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  41. 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: 0.015
  42. Posterior approach: back door in. Orthopedics. 2005 Sep; 28(9):931-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  43. The treatment of pelvic discontinuity during acetabular revision. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun; 20(4 Suppl 2):79-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  44. 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: 0.014
  45. Biologic fixation and bone ingrowth. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005 Jan; 36(1):105-11, vii.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  46. Extensively coated cementless femoral components in revision total hip arthoplasty: an update. Surg Technol Int. 2005; 14:265-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.014
  47. 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: 0.014
  48. The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Mar; (420):55-62.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  49. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Dec; (417):203-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  50. 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: 0.013
  51. 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: 0.013
  52. 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: 0.012
  53. Controlled femoral fracture: easy in. J Arthroplasty. 2003 Apr; 18(3 Suppl 1):91-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  54. Cemented stem failure requires extended trochanteric osteotomy. Orthopedics. 2003 Jan; 26(1):28, 38.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  55. Periprosthetic fractures of the acetabulum associated with a total hip arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2003; 52:281-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  56. 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: 0.012
  57. 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: 0.012
  58. Porous coated femoral fixation: the long and short of it. Orthopedics. 2002 Sep; 25(9):941-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  59. 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: 0.012
  60. 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: 0.012
  61. Removal of well-fixed femoral and acetabular components. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2002 Aug; 31(8):476-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  62. 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: 0.012
  63. Component removal in revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec; (393):181-93.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  64. Extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2001 Sep; 24(9):871-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  65. 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: 0.011
  66. Soft-Tissue Balancing in Total Hip Arthroplasty. JBJS Rev. 2021 02 15; 9(2):e20.00116.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  67. Preoperative recognition of acetabular defects: paths of reason. Orthopedics. 2000 Sep; 23(9):959-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  68. 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: 0.010
  69. Hip replacement: treatment of femoral bone loss using distal bypass fixation. Instr Course Lect. 2000; 49:119-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  70. 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: 0.010
  71. 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: 0.010
  72. Total acetabular allografts. Instr Course Lect. 1999; 48:67-76.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  73. Midlevel Providers in Orthopaedic Surgery: The Patient's Perspective. Iowa Orthop J. 2019; 39(1):211-216.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  74. Cementless femoral design concerns. Rationale for extensive porous coating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Oct; (355):189-99.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  75. 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: 0.009
  76. 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: 0.009
  77. Bypass fixation. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998 Apr; 29(2):319-29.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  78. High Rate of Failure After Revision of a Constrained Liner. J Arthroplasty. 2018 07; 33(7S):S186-S190.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  79. Osteolysis: surgical treatment. Instr Course Lect. 1998; 47:321-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  80. 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: 0.008
  81. Extensively coated femoral components in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Nov; (344):263-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  82. Cementless sockets: optimums and outcomes. Orthopedics. 1997 Sep; 20(9):777-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  83. Do Porous Tantalum Metaphyseal Cones Improve Outcomes in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2018 01; 33(1):171-177.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  84. 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: 0.008
  85. Prevention and Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Knee Infection. Instr Course Lect. 2017 Feb 15; 66:223-233.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  86. 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: 0.008
  87. 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: 0.008
  88. 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: 0.008
  89. Five to 14-year follow up on cementless femoral revisions. Orthopedics. 1996 Sep; 19(9):765-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  90. AAHKS Symposium: State-of-the-Art Management of Tough and Unsolved Problems in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016 09; 31(9 Suppl):7-15.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  91. Dual-Mobility Articulations for Patients at High Risk for Dislocation. J Arthroplasty. 2016 09; 31(9 Suppl):131-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  92. Acetabular reconstruction with massive acetabular allografts. Instr Course Lect. 1996; 45:149-59.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  93. 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: 0.007
  94. 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: 0.007
  95. Extended proximal femoral osteotomy. A new technique for femoral revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995 Jun; 10(3):329-38.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  96. 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: 0.007
  97. Acetabular defect classification: a detailed radiographic approach. Semin Arthroplasty. 1995 Apr; 6(2):76-85.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  98. Total acetabular transplant allograft reconstruction of the severely deficient acetabulum. Semin Arthroplasty. 1995 Apr; 6(2):86-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  99. 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: 0.007
  100. 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: 0.007
  101. Classification of bone defects in failed prostheses. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):285-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  102. Femoral reconstruction with massive allograft and cementless prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):313-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  103. Acetabular reconstruction with massive allograft and cementless prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):379-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  104. Hip revision surgery with cemented, cementless or hybrid prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov. 1994 Oct-Dec; 79(4):415-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  105. 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: 0.006
  106. Principles of bone grafting in revision total hip arthroplasty. Acetabular technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jan; (298):147-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  107. One-stage versus two-stage exchange. J Orthop Res. 2014 Jan; 32 Suppl 1:S141-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  108. Advances in acetabular osteolysis: biomarkers, imaging, and pharmacologic management. Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63:177-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  109. Maximizing function and outcomes in acetabular reconstruction: segmental bony defects and pelvic discontinuity. Instr Course Lect. 2014; 63:187-97.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  110. 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: 0.006
  111. 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: 0.006
  112. 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: 0.006
  113. One-stage vs two-stage exchange. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Feb; 29(2 Suppl):108-11.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  114. 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: 0.006
  115. Utility of trephine reamers in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan; 29(1):210-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  116. 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: 0.006
  117. Risk factors for dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb; 471(2):410-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  118. 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: 0.006
  119. 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: 0.006
  120. 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: 0.006
  121. 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: 0.006
  122. Classification and management of the unstable total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012 May; 27(5):710-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
  123. 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: 0.005
  124. 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: 0.005
  125. Threaded cup acetabuloplasty. Early clinical experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Apr; (241):183-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  126. 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: 0.004
  127. 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: 0.004
  128. A technique for minimally invasive, quadriceps-sparing total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2006 Jan; 19(1):63-70.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  129. Managing bone loss in acetabular revision. Instr Course Lect. 2006; 55:287-97.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  130. Extensor mechanism allograft reconstruction after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Sep; 87 Suppl 1(Pt 2):175-94.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  131. What would you do? Case challenges in hip surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun; 20(4 Suppl 2):98-104.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  132. Rapid rehabilitation and recovery with minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec; (429):239-47.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  133. 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: 0.003
  134. Use of structural allografts in acetabular revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Mar; (420):113-21.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  135. 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: 0.003
  136. 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: 0.003
  137. Surgical treatment of pelvic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec; (393):78-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  138. Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a long-stem cementless component. J Arthroplasty. 2001 Apr; 16(3):379-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  139. Patients' perception of pain after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000 Aug; 15(5):590-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  140. 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: 0.002
  141. Extended proximal femoral osteotomy. Instr Course Lect. 1999; 48:19-26.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  142. 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: 0.002
  143. 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: 0.002
  144. 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: 0.002
  145. Femoral strut allografts in cementless revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Oct; (295):172-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  146. 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: 0.001
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.