Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Best matches for bone structure of tibia AND knee replacement arthroplasty (procedure) AND metals AND tantalum:

Search results

Items: 1 to 20 of 27

1.

Do Porous Tantalum Metaphyseal Cones Improve Outcomes in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty?

Bohl DD, Brown NM, McDowell MA, Levine BR, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, Della Valle CJ.

J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jan;33(1):171-177. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.07.033. Epub 2017 Jul 28.

PMID:
28844630
2.

Development and Verification of Novel Porous Titanium Metaphyseal Cones for Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Faizan A, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Alipit V, Kirk AE, Krebs VE, Harwin SF, Meneghini RM.

J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jun;32(6):1946-1953. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.013. Epub 2017 Jan 18.

PMID:
28196619
3.

Cementless vs Cemented Tibial Fixation in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Behery OA, Kearns SM, Rabinowitz JM, Levine BR.

J Arthroplasty. 2017 May;32(5):1510-1515. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.023. Epub 2016 Dec 22.

PMID:
28082042
4.

Cementless Porous Tantalum Monoblock Tibia vs Cemented Modular Tibia in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.

Hu B, Chen Y, Zhu H, Wu H, Yan S.

J Arthroplasty. 2017 Feb;32(2):666-674. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.011. Epub 2016 Sep 28. Review.

PMID:
27776898
5.

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
6.

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.

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.

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
9.

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
10.

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
11.

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
12.

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
13.

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
14.

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
15.

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.

16.

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
17.

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
18.

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
19.

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.

20.

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

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Support Center