No Difference In Subsidence Between Modern Monoblock And Modular Titanium Fluted Tapered Femoral Stems.

[1]  S. Flynn,et al.  Subsidence of monoblock and modular titanium fluted tapered stems in revision hip arthroplasty: A retrospective multicentre comparison study. , 2022, Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma.

[2]  V. Zdravkovic,et al.  Aseptic Revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty With a Single Modular Femoral Stem and a Modified Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy—Treatment Assessment With the Forgotten Joint Score-12 , 2022, Arthroplasty today.

[3]  V. Zdravkovic,et al.  Mid-term outcomes following transfemoral revision of total hip arthroplasty for Vancouver B2/B3 periprosthetic fractures. , 2021, Injury.

[4]  K. Malizos,et al.  Clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty with tapered fluted modular or non-modular stems: a systematic review , 2021, Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy.

[5]  C. Buckle,et al.  Medium Term Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes Using a Modular Tapered Hip Revision Implant , 2021, Arthroplasty today.

[6]  Samik Banerjee,et al.  Modern Revision Femoral Stem Designs Have No Difference in Rates of Subsidence. , 2020, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[7]  R. Gul,et al.  Bicortical Contact Predicts Subsidence of Modular Tapered Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. , 2020, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[8]  R. Schwarzkopf,et al.  Subsidence Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Modular and Monolithic Components. , 2020, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  S. Incavo,et al.  Short-term outcomes with the REDAPT monolithic, tapered, fluted, grit-blasted, forged titanium revision femoral stem. , 2020, The bone & joint journal.

[10]  Matthew R. Cohn,et al.  Is There a Benefit to Modularity for Femoral Revisions When Using a Splined, Tapered Titanium Stem? , 2020, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[11]  F. Haddad,et al.  Single 3° tapered fluted femoral stems demonstrate low subsidence at mid-term follow-up in severe bony deficiency. , 2019, Annals of translational medicine.

[12]  S. Odum,et al.  Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Modular Tapered Fluted Stems for Femoral Revision for Paprosky III and IV Femoral Defects or Vancouver B2 and B3 Femoral Fractures. , 2019, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[13]  J. Vigdorchik,et al.  Nonmodular Stems Are a Viable Alternative to Modular Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. , 2019, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[14]  Yixin Zhou,et al.  Femoral Bone Remodeling in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of Modular Compared with Monoblock Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems: The Role of Stem Length and Stiffness , 2019, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[15]  D. Berry,et al.  Risk Factors for Subsidence of Modular Fluted Tapered Stems Used During Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Hip Fractures. , 2018, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[16]  Yixin Zhou,et al.  What Is the Difference Between Modular and Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. , 2017, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[17]  D. Berry,et al.  Modular Fluted Tapered Stems in Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty , 2017, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  B. Masri,et al.  Nonmodular Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems Osseointegrate Reliably at Short Term in Revision THAs , 2017, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[19]  I. Chambers,et al.  Differences in subsidence rate between alternative designs of a commonly used uncemented femoral stem. , 2016, Journal of orthopaedics.

[20]  F. Haddad,et al.  An In Vitro Comparison of the Primary Stability of 2 Tapered Fluted Femoral Stem Designs. , 2016, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[21]  B. Masri,et al.  Modular tapered titanium stems in revision arthroplasty of the hip: The Risk and Causes of Stem Fracture. , 2016, The bone & joint journal.

[22]  Jeffery L. Pierson,et al.  The Effect of Taper Angle and Spline Geometry on the Initial Stability of Tapered, Splined Modular Titanium Stems. , 2015, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[23]  A. Gross,et al.  Risk Factors for Subsidence of a Modular Tapered Femoral Stem Used for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty. , 2015, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[24]  V. Sahni,et al.  Subsidence in Collarless Corail Hip Replacement , 2015, The open orthopaedics journal.

[25]  D. Berry,et al.  Revision total hip arthroplasty in patients with extensive proximal femoral bone loss using a fluted tapered modular femoral component. , 2015, The bone & joint journal.

[26]  C. Ranawat,et al.  Reproducible fixation with a tapered, fluted, modular, titanium stem in revision hip arthroplasty at 8-15 years follow-up. , 2014, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[27]  B. Fink,et al.  Mid term results with the curved modular tapered, fluted titanium Revitan stem in revision hip replacement. , 2014, The bone & joint journal.

[28]  Jacob T. Munro,et al.  Tapered Fluted Titanium Stems in the Management of Vancouver B2 and B3 Periprosthetic Femoral Fractures , 2014, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[29]  D. Berry,et al.  Periprosthetic Femur Fractures Treated With Modular Fluted, Tapered Stems , 2014, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[30]  E. Swarts,et al.  Proximal Component Modularity in THA—At What Cost?: An Implant Retrieval Study , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[31]  R. Zdero,et al.  A biomechanical assessment of modular and monoblock revision hip implants using FE analysis and strain gage measurements , 2010, Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research.

[32]  B. Masri,et al.  Femoral Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparison of Two Stem Designs , 2010, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[33]  S. Larsson,et al.  The effect of early weight bearing on migration pattern of the uncemented CLS stem in total hip arthroplasty. , 2007, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[34]  S. Larsson,et al.  Early Migration Pattern of the Uncemented CLS Stem in Total Hip Arthroplasties , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[35]  C. D. Della Valle,et al.  The femur in revision total hip arthroplasty evaluation and classification. , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

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

[37]  E. Morscher,et al.  Three- to 7-year results with the uncemented SL femoral revision prosthesis , 1997, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[38]  R. Ganz,et al.  Femoral revision using the Wagner stem: results at 2–9 years , 2001, International Orthopaedics.

[39]  J. Antoniou,et al.  Minimum 10-year-results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. , 1999, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[40]  C. Engh,et al.  Total Hip Arthroplasty: Concerns With Extensively Porous Coated Femoral Components , 1998, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[41]  H. Mallmin,et al.  The Wagner revision stem for severe osteolysis. 31 hips followed for 1.5-5 years. , 1996, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[42]  J. Moreland,et al.  Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. , 1995, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.