Search for other papers by Michael M. Morlock in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Robert Hube in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Georgi Wassilew in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Felix Prange in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Gerd Huber in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Carsten Perka in
Google Scholar
PubMed
polyethylene (PE), metal-on-metal (MoM) hard-on-hard articulations started to become popular to enable larger head sizes. Opposite to PE bearings, the amount of wear in MoM bearings decreases with head size – as long as they are lubricated properly. This was
Search for other papers by Joaquín Sanchez-Sotelo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mark Morrey in
Google Scholar
PubMed
. Internal fixation Since only relatively more simple radial head fractures are considered for internal fixation, screw fixation is most of the time the modality of choice. Most surgeons prefer headless compression screws of various sizes ( Fig. 5 ). In the
Search for other papers by Luigi Zagra in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Enrico Gallazzi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
even when selecting a XLPE liner, but in standard routine cases no more than 36 mm is suggested according to the acetabular component size for safety reasons, as there is a lack of information for head sizes larger than 36 mm. The thickness of XLPE
Search for other papers by Philippe Hernigou in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by François Roubineau in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Charlie Bouthors in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Charles-Henri Flouzat-Lachaniette in
Google Scholar
PubMed
well-functioning, unrevised implants. In addition, among the implants in a given study, there is often heterogeneity in the bearing surfaces used, head size, offset, stem type, stem alloy and implant manufacturer which may have implications on taper
Search for other papers by Daniel Petek in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Didier Hannouche in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Domizio Suva in
Google Scholar
PubMed
first line’, representing an increased vascularity in granulation tissues. ( Fig. 3 ). The issue of the imaging evaluation concerns the integrity of the femoral head, the size of the lesion, the presence of a depression of the femoral head or an
Upper Limb Unit, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Jetske Viveen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Izaak F. Kodde in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Andras Heijink in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Koen L. M. Koenraadt in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michel P. J. van den Bekerom in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Denise Eygendaal in
Google Scholar
PubMed
RHAs: over sizing of the head, stiffness because of the (surgically) injured soft tissues around the elbow joint or a loose stem followed by migration of the implant. A clear explanation in the cases of the patients included in this study remains
Search for other papers by Bülent Atilla in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sancar Bakırcıoğlu in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Alexander J. Shope in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Javad Parvizi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
the literature ranging from two to five years make it impossible to determine the validity of this technique for joint preservation. It has been shown that when applied in younger patients, on smaller size (lesions < 15% femoral head) and medially
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Izaäk F. Kodde in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jetske Viveen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bertram The in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Roger P. van Riet in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Denise Eygendaal in
Google Scholar
PubMed
GS . Determination of correct implant size in radial head arthroplasty to avoid overlengthening . J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009 ; 91 : 1738 – 1746 . 20. Pessis E Sverzut JM Campagna R Guerini H Feydy
Search for other papers by Marta Maio in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marco Sarmento in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nuno Moura in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by António Cartucho in
Google Scholar
PubMed
height, humeral head width, Hill–Sachs lesion size, percentage humeral head loss. Maximal humeral head height (A) Residual humeral head width (B) Percentage humeral head bone loss = [(A–B/A)*100] Measurement differences from the 3D CT and 3D MR post
Search for other papers by Theofilos Karachalios in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by George Komnos in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Antonios Koutalos in
Google Scholar
PubMed
. Evaluating surgical and implant-related factors, cemented, cementless, hybrid fixation and head size proved not to be risk factors (due to confounding factors). For healthcare factors, low volume hospitals and low volume surgeons were risk factors for
