Botnar Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, UK
Search for other papers by Anne Lübbeke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christophe Combescure in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christophe Barea in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Amanda Inez Gonzalez in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Keith Tucker in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Per Kjærsgaard-Andersen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Tom Melvin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Alan G Fraser in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rob Nelissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
Search for other papers by James A Smith in
Google Scholar
PubMed
obtained lists of hip cups ( n = 138), hip stems ( n = 165), and knee ( n = 97) implants. From that pool of CE-marked implants, ten devices were then randomly selected from each of the three lists. The unit of analysis used was determined for the hip
Search for other papers by Keijo T. Mäkelä in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ove Furnes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Geir Hallan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Anne Marie Fenstad in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ola Rolfson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Johan Kärrholm in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Cecilia Rogmark in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Alma Becic Pedersen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Otto Robertsson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Annette W-Dahl in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Antti Eskelinen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Henrik M. Schrøder in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ville Äärimaa in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jeppe V. Rasmussen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Björn Salomonsson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Randi Hole in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Søren Overgaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
those classified according to fixation technique as cemented, uncemented, and hybrids (uncemented cup/cemented stem). Focus on metal-on-metal hip devices Johanson et al (2010) compared 1638 hip resurfacing arthroplasties in Sweden, Norway and
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
Search for other papers by Claus Varnum in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Alma Bečić Pedersen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
Search for other papers by Ola Rolfson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Department of Orthopedics, Malmö, Sweden
Search for other papers by Cecilia Rogmark in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Search for other papers by Ove Furnes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Search for other papers by Geir Hallan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Search for other papers by Keijo Mäkelä in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Surgery, Epworth HealthCare, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Search for other papers by Richard de Steiger in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Centre for Hip Surgery, Wrightington Hospital, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust, Lancashire, United Kingdom
Search for other papers by Martyn Porter in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Orthopaedic Research Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Search for other papers by Søren Overgaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
components used in THA in Sweden. Likewise, for acetabular components, ten different cup designs account for > 82% of the production. 12 Thein et al investigated design-related features of the three most commonly used stems in Sweden. Although the most
Search for other papers by Xiang-Dong Wu in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yixin Zhou in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Hongyi Shao in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dejin Yang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sheng-Jie Guo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wei Huang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
) 2021 China Case series 71 patients (68 cup revisions + 68 stem revisions) THA converted to RTHA MAKO — Three types of registration techniques (extra acetabular bone surface based, liner based, metal shell-based or cage surface-based) on
Search for other papers by Christoph H. Lohmann in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sanjiv Rampal in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Martin Lohrengel in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Gurpal Singh in
Google Scholar
PubMed
own experience, we feel that this is especially true in certain situations – bone loss due to osteolysis around the acetabular cup of a total hip arthoplasty (THA) and the femoral component of the total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The underlying reason is
Search for other papers by M M Morlock in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by E Gomez-Barrena in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by D C Wirtz in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by A Hart in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by J P Kretzer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
by the orthopaedic community, frequently resulting in discontinuation. Figure 1 Massive osteolysis around the acetabular cup and the femoral stem of an uncemented total hip arthroplasty due to PE wear 7 years after implantation
Search for other papers by Richard N de Steiger in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Brian R Hallstrom in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Anne Lübbeke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Elizabeth W Paxton in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Liza N van Steenbergen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
National Joint Replacement for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey (NJR)
Search for other papers by Mark Wilkinson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Registry combined both hip and knee data and introduced a similar method of evaluating acetabular cups and femoral stems as SKAR had previously done. The Swiss National Hip and Knee Joint Registry uses similar methodology to the AOANJRR with the
Search for other papers by Geke A. W. Denissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Liza N. van Steenbergen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wouter T. Lollinga in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Nico J. J. Verdonschot in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Dept. of Orthopaedics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Berend W. Schreurs in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Dept. of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Rob G. H. H. Nelissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
• Resurfacing Set 1 - Set 2 - - Hip acetabulum • Monoblock (complete cup) • Mobile backing • Cemented • Press-fit • Screw cup Set 1 Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 - Hip liner - • Standard Set 1 Set 1 - Set 3
Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health & Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Search for other papers by Søren Overgaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), Campus Grosshadern, Munich, Germany
Search for other papers by Thomas M Grupp in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Technical University Delft, Delft, the Netherlands
Search for other papers by Rob GHH Nelissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Luca Cristofolini in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, UK
Search for other papers by Anne Lübbeke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marcus Jäger in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Matthias Fink in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sabine Rusch in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Hassan Achakri in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Francesco Benazzo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dario Bergadano in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Georg N Duda in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christian Kaddick in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Volkmar Jansson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Klaus-Peter Günther in
Google Scholar
PubMed
which might not have any direct influence on implant performance/fixation/patient, that is, minor optimisations on given implants. Some examples are an adjusted radius in the locking mechanism between the acetabular cup and insert; a different shape of
Search for other papers by Bart G. Pijls in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jennifer M. T. A. Meessen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Keith Tucker in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Susanna Stea in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Liza Steenbergen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Anne Marie Fenstad in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Keijo Mäkelä in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ioan Cristian Stoica in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Maxim Goncharov in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Søren Overgaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
Instituto de Biomedicina (IBIOMED). Universidad de León, León, Spain
Search for other papers by Jorge Arias de la Torre in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Search for other papers by Anne Lübbeke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ola Rolfson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rob G. H. H. Nelissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
cups in stemmed large head MoM implants. Primary revisions Five-year revision rates The resurfacings and stemmed large head MoM implants had higher pooled revision rates at five years than the standard THA ( Fig. 1 ): 6.0%, 95% confidence