Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 128

1.

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.

2.

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
3.

Porous tantalum tibial component prevents periprosthetic loss of bone mineral density after total knee arthroplasty for five years-a matched cohort study.

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

J Arthroplasty. 2013 Dec;28(10):1760-4. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.03.031. Epub 2013 Apr 30.

PMID:
23642446
4.

The Mark Coventry Award: Trabecular metal tibial components were durable and reliable in primary total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial.

Pulido L, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, Stuart MJ, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW.

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jan;473(1):34-42. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3585-y.

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.

Proximal tibial bone density is preserved after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Richmond BI, Hadlow SV, Lynskey TG, Walker CG, Munro JT.

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 May;471(5):1661-9. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-2784-2. Epub 2013 Jan 17.

7.

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
8.

Trabecular metal in total knee arthroplasty associated with higher knee scores: a randomized controlled trial.

Fernandez-Fairen M, Hernández-Vaquero D, Murcia A, Torres A, Llopis R.

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Nov;471(11):3543-53. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3183-4. Epub 2013 Jul 25.

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.

Changes in bone mineral density of the proximal tibia after uncemented total knee arthroplasty. A prospective randomized study.

Winther N, Jensen C, Petersen M, Lind T, Schrøder H, Petersen M.

Int Orthop. 2016 Feb;40(2):285-94. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2852-1. Epub 2015 Jul 17.

PMID:
26183139
11.

Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Cementless Porous Tantalum Monoblock Tibial Component: A Minimum 10-Year Follow-Up.

De Martino I, D'Apolito R, Sculco PK, Poultsides LA, Gasparini G.

J Arthroplasty. 2016 Oct;31(10):2193-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.03.057. Epub 2016 Apr 12.

PMID:
27172865
12.

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
13.

The effect of the Oxford uncemented medial compartment arthroplasty on the bone mineral density and content of the proximal tibia.

Hooper GJ, Gilchrist N, Maxwell R, March R, Heard A, Frampton C.

Bone Joint J. 2013 Nov;95-B(11):1480-3. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.31509.

PMID:
24151266
14.

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

Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD.

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jan;90(1):78-84. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01495.

PMID:
18171960
15.

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
16.

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
17.

Is There A Difference in Bone Ingrowth in Modular Versus Monoblock Porous Tantalum Tibial Trays?

Hanzlik JA, Day JS, Rimnac CM, Kurtz SM; Ingrowth retrieval study group.

J Arthroplasty. 2015 Jun;30(6):1073-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.010. Epub 2015 Jan 22.

18.

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
19.

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
20.

Supplemental Content

Support Center