Open Access
Volume 8, 2022
Article Number 12
Number of page(s) 8
Section Hip
Published online 04 April 2022
  1. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C (2007) The operation of the century: Total hip replacement. The Lancet 370, 1508–1519. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Miric A, Inacio MC, Kelly MP, et al. (2015) Are nonagenarians too old for total hip arthroplasty? An evaluation of morbidity and mortality within a total joint replacement registry. J Arthroplasty 30, 1324–1327. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chikuda H, Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, et al (2013) Impact of age and comorbidity burden on mortality and major complications in older adults undergoing orthopaedic surgery: An analysis using the Japanese diagnosis procedure combination database. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14, 173. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kennedy JW, Johnston L, Cochrane L, et al. (2013) Outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in the octogenarian population. Surg: J Roy Coll Surg Edinb Irel 11, 199–204. [Google Scholar]
  5. Becher KF, Madersbacher S, Michel MC, et al. (2020) Das management geriatrischer patienten mit benignem prostatasyndrom. Der Urologe 59, 1195–1203. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Rolfson O, Bohm E, Franklin P, et al. (2016) Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries. Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop 87(Suppl 1), 9–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ashby E, Grocott MPW, Haddad FS (2008) Outcome measures for orthopaedic interventions on the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90-B, 545–549. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Harris K, Dawson J, Gibbons E, et al. (2016) Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 7, 101–108. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Quintana JM, Escobar A, Bilbao A, et al. (2005) Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthr Cartil 13, 1076–1083. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, et al. (2005) Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 64, 34–37. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Claes CGW, Uber A, Graf von der Schulenburg JM (1999) An interview-based comparison of the TTO and VAS values given to EuroQol states of health by the general German population, In: Proceedings of the 15th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group. Greiner W, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Piercy J, et al., Editors. Hannover, Germany, Centre for Health Economics and Health Systems Research, University of Hannover, pp. 13–38. [Google Scholar]
  12. Paulsen A, Roos EM, Pedersen AB, et al. (2014) Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively. Acta Orthop 85, 39–48. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Aalund PK, Glassou EN, Hansen TB (2017) The impact of age and preoperative health-related quality of life on patient-reported improvements after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Interv Aging 12, 1951–1956. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Austin DC, Torchia MT, Moschetti WE, et al. (2020) Patient outcomes after total hip arthroplasty in extreme elderly patients older than 80 years. HIP Int 30, 407–416. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. MacKay C, Clements N, Wong R, et al. (2019) A systematic review of estimates of the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index in patients who underwent total hip and total knee replacement. Osteoarthr Cartil 27, 1408–1419. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Yohe N, Weisberg MD, Ciminero M, et al. (2020) Complications and readmissions after total hip replacement in octogenarians and nonagenarians. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 11, 2151459320940959. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Tarazona-Santabalbina FJ, Belenguer-Varea Á, Rovira E, et al. (2016) Orthogeriatric care: Improving patient outcomes. Clin Interv Aging 11, 843–856. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lübbeke A, Suvà D, Hoffmeyer P (2007) Elective total hip replacement in patients aged 80 years and older. Rev Med Suisse 3, 2889–2891. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Claßen T, Scheid C, Landgraeber S, et al. (2017) Characteristics of elective hip replacement in the elderly. Der Orthopade 46, 25–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Boniello AJ, Simon MS, Emenari CC, et al. (2018) Complications and mortality following total hip arthroplasty in the octogenarians: An analysis of a national database. J Arthroplasty 33, S167–S171. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Aziz HA, Lunde J, Barraco R, et al. (2019) Evidence-based review of trauma center care and routine palliative care processes for geriatric trauma patients; A collaboration from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Patient Assessment Committee, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Geriatric Trauma Committee, and the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Guidelines Committee. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 86, 737–743. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Aw D, Sahota O (2014) Orthogeriatrics moving forward. Age Ageing 43, 301–305. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lindberg-Larsen M, Jørgensen CC, Solgaard S, et al. (2017) Increased risk of intraoperative and early postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture with uncemented stems. Acta Orthop 88, 390–394. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lamb JN, Matharu GS, Redmond A, et al. (2019) Risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures during primary total hip arthroplasty. An analysis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales and the Isle of Man. J Arthroplasty 34, 3065–3073.e3061. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Tsikandylakis G, Overgaard S, Zagra L, et al. (2020) Global diversity in bearings in primary THA. EFORT Open Rev 5, 763–775. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [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.