Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Search results

Items: 1 to 20 of 21

1.

Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up.

Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD.

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Feb 4;97(3):216-23. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00540.

PMID:
25653322
2.

Cementless total knee replacement fixation: a contemporary durable solution--affirms.

Kwong LM, Nielsen ES, Ruiz DR, Hsu AH, Dines MD, Mellano CM.

Bone Joint J. 2014 Nov;96-B(11 Supple A):87-92. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B11.34327.

PMID:
25381416
3.

Outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty with the use of trabecular metal cone for reconstruction of severe bone loss at the proximal tibia.

Jensen CL, Winther N, Schrøder HM, Petersen MM.

Knee. 2014 Dec;21(6):1233-7. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2014.08.017. Epub 2014 Sep 10.

PMID:
25212989
4.

Micromotion of cementless tibial baseplates: keels with adjuvant pegs offer more stability than pegs alone.

Bhimji S, Meneghini RM.

J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jul;29(7):1503-6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.02.016. Epub 2014 Feb 21.

PMID:
24709524
5.

Mid-term results of total knee arthroplasty with a porous tantalum monoblock tibial component.

Hayakawa K, Date H, Tsujimura S, Nojiri S, Yamada H, Nakagawa K.

Knee. 2014 Jan;21(1):199-203. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2013.06.004. Epub 2013 Jul 18.

PMID:
23871406
6.

Treatment of large bone defects with trabecular metal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Derome P, Sternheim A, Backstein D, Malo M.

J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):122-6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.033. Epub 2013 May 20.

PMID:
23702265
7.

Three-year follow up utilizing tantal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Schmitz HC, Klauser W, Citak M, Al-Khateeb H, Gehrke T, Kendoff D.

J Arthroplasty. 2013 Oct;28(9):1556-60. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.028. Epub 2013 May 8.

PMID:
23664075
8.

Tantalum cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. A promising short-term result with 29 cones in 21 patients.

Villanueva-Martínez M, De la Torre-Escudero B, Rojo-Manaute JM, Ríos-Luna A, Chana-Rodriguez F.

J Arthroplasty. 2013 Jun;28(6):988-93. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.09.003. Epub 2013 Feb 13.

PMID:
23414934
9.

Bone mineral density changes of the proximal tibia after revision total knee arthroplasty. A randomised study with the use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones.

Jensen CL, Petersen MM, Schrøder HM, Lund B.

Int Orthop. 2012 Sep;36(9):1857-63. doi: 10.1007/s00264-012-1601-y. Epub 2012 Jun 26.

10.

Prospective results of uncemented tantalum monoblock tibia in total knee arthroplasty: minimum 5-year follow-up in patients younger than 55 years.

Kamath AF, Lee GC, Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Garino JP, Israelite CL.

J Arthroplasty. 2011 Dec;26(8):1390-5. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.030. Epub 2011 Aug 26.

PMID:
21872424
11.

Midterm results of a porous tantalum monoblock tibia component clinical and radiographic results of 108 knees.

Unger AS, Duggan JP.

J Arthroplasty. 2011 Sep;26(6):855-60. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.08.017. Epub 2010 Oct 29.

PMID:
21036009
12.

Comparison of bone mineral density between porous tantalum and cemented tibial total knee arthroplasty components.

Minoda Y, Kobayashi A, Iwaki H, Ikebuchi M, Inori F, Takaoka K.

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Mar;92(3):700-6. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01349.

PMID:
20194329
13.

Do porous tantalum implants help preserve bone?: evaluation of tibial bone density surrounding tantalum tibial implants in TKA.

Harrison AK, Gioe TJ, Simonelli C, Tatman PJ, Schoeller MC.

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Oct;468(10):2739-45. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1222-y. Epub 2010 Jan 12.

14.

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of a monoblock tibial component.

O'Keefe TJ, Winter S, Lewallen DG, Robertson DD, Poggie RA.

J Arthroplasty. 2010 Aug;25(5):785-92. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.05.029. Epub 2009 Jul 28.

PMID:
19640673
15.

Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. Surgical technique.

Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD.

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Mar 1;91 Suppl 2 Pt 1:131-8. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01061.

PMID:
19255205
16.

A trabecular metal tibial component in total knee replacement in patients younger than 60 years: a two-year radiostereophotogrammetric analysis.

Henricson A, Linder L, Nilsson KG.

J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Dec;90(12):1585-93. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B12.20797.

PMID:
19043129
17.

Trabecular metal endoprosthetic limb salvage reconstruction of the lower limb.

Holt GE, Christie MJ, Schwartz HS.

J Arthroplasty. 2009 Oct;24(7):1079-85. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.08.010. Epub 2008 Oct 1.

PMID:
18834697
18.

Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up.

Long WJ, Scuderi GR.

J Arthroplasty. 2009 Oct;24(7):1086-92. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.08.011. Epub 2008 Sep 26.

PMID:
18823749
19.

Comparison of the model-based and marker-based roentgen stereophotogrammetry methods in a typical clinical setting.

Hurschler C, Seehaus F, Emmerich J, Kaptein BL, Windhagen H.

J Arthroplasty. 2009 Jun;24(4):594-606. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.02.004. Epub 2008 Aug 3.

PMID:
18676114
20.

Preliminary results of an uncemented trabecular metal tibial component in total knee arthroplasty.

Helm AT, Kerin C, Ghalayini SR, McLauchlan GJ.

J Arthroplasty. 2009 Sep;24(6):941-4. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.06.018. Epub 2008 Jul 31.

PMID:
18672343
Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Write to the Help Desk