Survivorship of Metaphyseal Cones and Sleeves in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

[1]  A. Siddiqi,et al.  The Use of Metaphyseal Cones and Sleeves in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. , 2021, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[2]  P. Schlattmann,et al.  Cones and sleeves present good survival and clinical outcome in revision total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis , 2021, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[3]  Fernando J Quevedo González,et al.  Do Metaphyseal Cones and Stems Provide Any Biomechanical Advantage for Moderate Contained Tibial Defects in Revision TKA? A Finite-Element Analysis Based on a Cadaver Model , 2021, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[4]  M. Pagnano,et al.  Excellent two-year survivorship of 3D-printed metaphyseal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. , 2020, The bone & joint journal.

[5]  A. Deshmukh,et al.  Aseptic Loosening of Porous Metaphyseal Sleeves and Tantalum Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review , 2020, The Journal of Knee Surgery.

[6]  J. Palan,et al.  Metaphyseal Sleeves in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Provide Reliable Fixation and Excellent Medium to Long-Term Implant Survivorship. , 2020, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[7]  William F. Scully,et al.  Removal of Well-Fixed Tibial Cone in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty—A Uniquely Challenging Yet Necessary Scenario , 2019, The Journal of Knee Surgery.

[8]  H. Graichen,et al.  Are Stems Redundant in Times of Metaphyseal Sleeve Fixation? , 2019, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  T. Gehrke,et al.  Clinical Survivorship of Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Hinged Knees and Tantalum Cones at Minimum 10-Year Follow-Up. , 2019, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[10]  A. Malkani,et al.  Metaphyseal Fixation Using Highly Porous Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Minimum Two Year Follow Up Study , 2019, The Journal of Arthroplasty.

[11]  S. Agarwal,et al.  Metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty: Minimum seven-year follow-up study. , 2018, The Knee.

[12]  D. Bohl,et al.  Do Porous Tantalum Metaphyseal Cones Improve Outcomes in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty? , 2018, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[13]  M. Pagnano,et al.  Survivorship of Metaphyseal Sleeves in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. , 2017, Journal of Arthroplasty.

[14]  B. Masri,et al.  No Difference Between Trabecular Metal Cones and Femoral Head Allografts in Revision TKA: Minimum 5-year Followup , 2017, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[15]  A. Hanssen,et al.  Midterm Results of Porous Tantalum Femoral Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. , 2016, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[16]  D. Dennis,et al.  Removing a well-fixed femoral sleeve during revision total knee arthroplasty , 2016, Arthroplasty today.

[17]  D. Dennis,et al.  Development of a Modern Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System and Methodology for Total Knee Arthroplasty. , 2015, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[18]  A. Hanssen,et al.  Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up. , 2015, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[19]  F. Haddad,et al.  Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. , 2015, The bone & joint journal.

[20]  D. Backstein,et al.  Treatment of large bone defects with trabecular metal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term clinical and radiographic outcomes. , 2014, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[21]  T. Vail,et al.  Can Tantalum Cones Provide Fixation in Complex Revision Knee Arthroplasty? , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[22]  A. Hanssen,et al.  Metaphyseal Fixation in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Indications and Techniques , 2011, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[23]  J. Howard,et al.  Early results of the use of tantalum femoral cones for revision total knee arthroplasty. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[24]  G. Scuderi**,et al.  Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up. , 2009, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[25]  R. Bourne,et al.  Results of Press-fit Stems in Revision Knee Arthroplasties , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[26]  A. Hanssen,et al.  Limitations of Structural Allograft in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[27]  A. Hanssen,et al.  Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[28]  C. Peters,et al.  Revision total knee arthroplasty with modular components inserted with metaphyseal cement and stems without cement. , 2005, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[29]  S. Odum,et al.  Stem Fixation in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparative Analysis , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[30]  D. Berry,et al.  Revision total knee arthroplasty with cemented components and uncemented intramedullary stems. , 2003, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[31]  James J. Patterson,et al.  Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Fixation With Modular Stems , 2002, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[32]  D. Ammeen,et al.  Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. , 1999, Instructional course lectures.

[33]  J. Insall,et al.  Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of modular components with stems inserted without cement. , 1995, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[34]  M. Freeman,et al.  Stemmed revision arthroplasty for aseptic loosening of total knee replacement. , 1985, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[35]  P S Walker,et al.  Tibial Component Fixation in Deficient Tibial Bone Stock , 1984, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.