The use of a standard-length conical tapered stem in hip revision arthroplasty to address Paprosky type I–II femoral defects: a prospective study of 87 patients

[1]  G. V. van Hellemondt,et al.  Stay short or go long in revision THA with Paprosky type II femoral defects: A comparative study with the use of an uncemented distal fixating modular stem and a primary monobloc conical stems with 5 years follow-up. , 2022, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[2]  T. Yoon,et al.  Long-term outcomes of cementless femoral stem revision with the Wagner cone prosthesis , 2021, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.

[3]  B. Levine,et al.  Wagner Cone Midterm Survivorship and Outcomes. , 2020, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[4]  George N Guild,et al.  Projections and Epidemiology of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. , 2020, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[5]  R. Schwarzkopf,et al.  Re-revision total hip arthroplasty: Epidemiology and factors associated with outcomes. , 2017, Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma.

[6]  L. Felli,et al.  Primary cementless stems in septic hip revision: Indications and results , 2019, Journal of orthopaedic surgery.

[7]  L. Felli,et al.  Femoral revision with primary cementless stems: a systematic review of the literature , 2017, MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY.

[8]  R. Kerry,et al.  Stay Short or Go Long? Can a Standard Cemented Femoral Prosthesis Be Used at Second-Stage Total Hip Arthroplasty Revision for Infection Following an Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy? , 2017, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  B. Masri,et al.  The Wagner Cone Stem for the Management of the Challenging Femur in Primary Hip Arthroplasty. , 2016, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[10]  J. Tabutin,et al.  Femoral revision with a primary cementless stem. , 2016, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[11]  W. Maloney,et al.  Can a Conical Implant Successfully Address Complex Anatomy in Primary THA? Radiographs and Hip Scores at Early Followup , 2016, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[12]  D. Lewallen,et al.  Management of Femoral Bone Loss in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2015, Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy.

[13]  B. Masri,et al.  Non-modular tapered fluted titanium stems in hip revision surgery: gaining attention. , 2014, The bone & joint journal.

[14]  B. Levine,et al.  The inter-observer and intra-observer reliability of the Paprosky femoral bone loss classification system. , 2014, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[15]  S. Shukla,et al.  Are Short Fully Coated Stems Adequate for “Simple” Femoral Revisions? , 2014, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  Michael A Mont,et al.  Results of a tapered proximally-coated primary cementless stem for revision hip surgery. , 2014, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[17]  G. Haidukewych,et al.  Results of revision total hip arthroplasty with modular, titanium-tapered femoral stems in severe proximal metaphyseal and diaphyseal bone loss. , 2013, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[18]  A. Malkani,et al.  Revision total hip arthroplasty using a modular femoral implant in Paprosky type III and IV femoral bone loss. , 2012, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[19]  F. Canovas,et al.  Stem subsidence after total hip revision: 183 cases at 5.9 years follow-up. , 2011, Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR.

[20]  Edmund Lau,et al.  Risk of Subsequent Revision after Primary and Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty , 2010, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[21]  P. Neyret,et al.  Conservative femoral stem revision: avoiding therapeutic escalation. , 2009, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[22]  O. Sköldenberg,et al.  Good results with an uncemented proximally HA-coated stem in hip revision surgery: 62 hips followed for 2–13 years , 2008, Acta orthopaedica.

[23]  A. Schuh,et al.  Long-term results of the Wagner cone prosthesis , 2009, International Orthopaedics.

[24]  P. Stalmeier,et al.  The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. , 2006, Health economics.

[25]  A. Wines,et al.  Computed tomography measurement of the accuracy of component version in total hip arthroplasty. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[26]  B. Beynnon,et al.  The use of a hydroxyapatite-coated primary stem in revision total hip arthroplasty. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[27]  S. Bulstra,et al.  The “Oxford Heup Score” , 2005, Acta orthopaedica.

[28]  R. Bourne,et al.  Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of a cemented femoral component. Results at a mean of ten years. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[29]  P. Böhm,et al.  The Use of Tapered Stems for Femoral Revision Surgery , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[30]  W. Paprosky,et al.  Classification and an Algorithmic Approach to the Reconstruction of Femoral Deficiency in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[31]  O. Svensson,et al.  Revision total hip arthroplasty using third-generation cementing technique. , 2000, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[32]  Dr. med. Dr. phil. Gerhard Nahler.  Dictionary of Pharmaceutical Medicine , 1994, Springer Vienna.

[33]  C. Engh,et al.  Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. , 1990, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.