Open Access
| Issue |
SICOT-J
Volume 10, 2024
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Article Number | 16 | |
| Number of page(s) | 7 | |
| Section | Hip | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2024013 | |
| Published online | 16 May 2024 | |
- Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) (2022) Hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty: 2022 annual report. AOA, Adelaide. Available at https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2022. [Google Scholar]
- Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Jt Surg Am 60, 217–220. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wan Z, Boutary M, Dorr LD (2008) The influence of acetabular component position on wear in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 23, 51–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, et al. (2011) The john charnley award: Risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469, 319–329. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hevesi M, Wyles CC, Rouzrokh P, et al. (2022) Redefining the 3D topography of the acetabular safe zone. J Bone Jt Surg 104, 239–245. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dorr LD, Malik A, Dastane M, et al. (2009) Combined anteversion technique for total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467, 119–127. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bohl DD, Nolte MT, Ong K, et al. (2019) Computer-assisted navigation is associated with reductions in the rates of dislocation and acetabular component revision following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 101, 250–256. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Agarwal S, Eckhard L, Walter WL, et al. (2021) The use of computer navigation in total hip arthroplasty is associated with a reduced rate of revision for dislocation: a study of 6,912 navigated THA PROCEDURES from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 103, 1900–1905. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kunze KN, Bovonratwet P, Polce EM, et al. (2022) Comparison of surgical time, short-term adverse events, and implant placement accuracy between manual, robotic-assisted, and computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 6, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- McArthur BA, Schueler BA, Howe BM, et al. (2015) Radiation exposure during fluoroscopic guided direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 30, 1565–1568. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Archbold HAP, Mockford B, Molloy D, et al. (2006) The transverse acetabular ligament: An aid to orientation of the acetabular component during primary total hip replacement. A preliminary study of 1000 cases investigating post-operative stability. J Bone Jt Surg Ser B 88, 883–886. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Davenport D, Kavarthapu V (2016) Computer navigation of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty: a narrative review. EFORT Open Rev 1, 279–285. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Shatrov J, Marsden-Jones D, Lyons M, et al. (2022) Improving acetabular component positioning in total hip arthroplasty: a cadaveric study of an inertial navigation tool and a novel registration method. HSS J 18, 358–367. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Walter WL, Baker NA, Marsden-Jones D, et al. (2022) Novel measure of acetabular cup inclination and anteversion during total hip arthroplasty. Med Devices Evid Res 15, 1–14. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Woo RYG, Morrey BF (1982) Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg 64, 1295–1306. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hevesi M, Wyles CC, Rouzrokh P, et al. (2022) Redefining the 3D topography of the acetabular safe zone: a multivariable study evaluating prosthetic hip stability. J Bone Jt Surg Am 104 (3): 239–245. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wan Z, Malik A, Jaramaz B, et al. (2009) Imaging and navigation measurement of acetabular component position in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467, 32–42. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Murray DW (1992) The definition and orientation measurement of actebular orientation. J Bone Jt Surg 75, 228–232. [Google Scholar]
- Pierrepont J, Hawdon G, Miles BP, et al. (2017) Variation in functional pelvic tilt in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 99-B, 184–191. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lohe F, Eckstein F, Sauer TPR (1996) Structure, strain and function of the transverse acetabular ligament. Acta Anat 157, 315–323. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Merle C, Grammatopoulos G, Waldstein W, et al. (2013) Comparison of native anatomy with recommended. J Bone Joint Surg Am 172, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Moskal JT, Capps SG (2010) Improving the accuracy of acetabular component orientation: Avoiding malposition. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18, 286–296. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Xu K, Li YM, Zhang HF, et al. (2014) Computer navigation in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis ofrandomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 12, 528–533. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Xu J, Veltman ES, Chai Y, et al. (2023) Accuracy of acetabular component alignment with surgical guidance systems during hip arthroplasty. SICOT-J 9, 12. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bayraktar V, Weber M, von Kunow F, et al. (2017) Accuracy of measuring acetabular cup position after total hip arthroplasty: comparison between a radiographic planning software and three-dimensional computed tomography. Int Orthop 41, 731–738. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ghelman B, Kepler CK, Lyman S, et al. (2009) CT outperforms radiography for determination of acetabular cup version after THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467, 2362–2370. [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.