Open Access
Volume 6, 2020
Article Number 2
Number of page(s) 6
Section Hip
Published online 14 January 2020
  1. Ito H, Matsuno T, Aoki Y, et al (2003) Acetabular components without bulk bone graft in revision surgery: a 5- to 13-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty, 18(2), 134–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dearborn JT, Harris WH (1999) High placement of an acetabular component inserted without cement in a revision total hip arthroplasty. Results after a mean of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 81(4), 469–480. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chang CH, Hu CC, Chen CC, Mahajan J, Chang Y, Shih HN, Kwon YM (2018) Revision total hip arthroplasty for Paprosky type III acetabular defect with structural allograft and tantalum trabecular metal acetabular cup. Orthopedics, 41(6), e861–e867. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Morales De Cano JJ, Guillamet L, Perez Pons A (2019) Acetabular reconstruction in Paprosky type 3 defects. Acta Ortop Bras, 27(1), 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baba T, Shitoto K (2010) Revision of total hip arthroplasty using the Kerboull and KT plates. Int Orthop, 39, 1839–1844. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kawanabe K, Akiyama H, Onishi E, et al. (2007) Revision total hip replacement using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device with morsellised or bulk graft: results at a mean follow-up of 8.7 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 89(1), 26–31. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Assi C, Caton J, Aslanian T, Samaha C, Yammine K (2018) The cross technique for the positioning of Kerboull platein acetabular reconstruction surgery. SICOT-J, 4, 20. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Assi C, Caton J, Fawaz W, Samaha C, Yammine K (2018) Revision total hip arthroplasty with a Kerboull plate: comparative outcomes using standard versus dual mobility cups. Int Orthop, 43, 2245–2251. [Google Scholar]
  9. Baba T, Homma Y, Ochi H, et al. (2016) Total hip arthroplasty using Kerboull-type plate for rapidly destructive coxarthrosis: comparison with uncemented acetabular component. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 26, 189–194. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Sarpong NO, Grosso MJ, Lakra A, Held MB, Herndon CL, Cooper HJ (2019) Hemiarthroplasty conversion: A comparison to primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 34(6), 1168–1173. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. De Martino I, Strigelli V, Cacciola G, Gu A, Bostrom MP, Sculco PK (2019) Survivorship and clinical outcomes of custom triflange acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty, 34, 2511–2518. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nakata K, Nishikawa M, Yamamoto K, Hirota S, Yoshikawa H (2009) A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty, 24(5), 698–704. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ozaki Y, Baba T, Homma Y, Ochi H, Watari T, Banno S, Matsumoto M, Kaneko K (2018) Posterior versus direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: difference in patient-reported outcomes measured with the Forgotten Joint Score-12. SICOT J, 4, 54. [Google Scholar]
  14. Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty: a 6-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty, 9(1), 33–44. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Edwards PK, Queen RM, Butler RJ, Bolognesi MP, Barnes CL (2016) Are range of motion measurements needed when calculating the Harris hip score? J Arthroplasty, 31(4), 815–819. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. DeLee JG, Chanley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented socket in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop, 121, 20–32. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kerboull M, Hamadouche M, Kerboull L (2000) The Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device in major acetabular reconstructions. Clin Orthop, 378, 155–168. [Google Scholar]
  18. Tanaka C, Shikata J, Ikenaga M (2003) Acetabular reconstruction using a Kerboull-type acetabular reinforcement device and hydroxyapatite granules: a 3- to 8-year follow- up study. J Arthroplasty, 18, 719–725. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Akiyama H, Kawanabe K, Iida H, Haile P, Goto K, Nakamura T (2010) Long-term results of cemented total hip arthroplasty in developmental dysplasia with acetabular bulk bone grafts after improving operative techniques. J Arthroplasty, 25, 716–720. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kobayashi H, Homma Y, Baba T, Ochi H, Matsumoto M, Yuasa T, Kaneko K (2016) Surgeons changing the approach for total hip arthroplasty from posterior to direct anterior with fluoroscopy should consider potential excessive cup anteversion and flexion implantation of the stem in their early experience. Int Orthop, 40(9), 1813–1819. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kerboull L (2015) Selecting the surgical approach for revision total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Trauma Surg Res, 101, 171–178. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Homma Y, Baba T, Kobayashi H, Desroches A, Ozaki Y, Ochi H, Matsumoto M, Yuasa T, Kaneko K (2016) Safety in early experience with a direct anterior approach using fluoroscopic guidance with manual leg control for primary total hip arthroplasty: a consecutive one hundred and twenty case series. Int Orthop, 40(12), 2487–2494. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Matsumoto M, Baba T, Ochi H, Ozaki Y, Watari T, Homma Y, Kaneko K (2017) Kerboull-type plate in a direct anterior approach for severe bone defects at primary total hip arthroplasty: technical note. SICOT J, 3, 21. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Tamaki T, Ninomiya T, Jonishi K, Miura Y, Oinuma K, Shiratsuchi H (2018) Acetabular revision using a Kerboull-type reinforcement device through direct anterior approach. J Orthop Surg, 26(2). doi: 10.1177/2309499018782553. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.