Search for other papers by Haroon Majeed in
Google Scholar
PubMed
’ familiarity with the procedure. 7 The options for replacement include a silastic (silicone) or a metallic implant. It follows the basic principles of any joint-replacement surgery aiming to reduce pain, restore joint kinematics, be long lasting and not be
Search for other papers by Maurizio Calcagni in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Thomas Giesen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
s by means of ulna head replacement with silastic implants. We define these implants as Type 1 implants, aimed at creating an interposition between the bone ends. Since the failed silicone arthroplasty was abandoned, until recently few reports could
Search for other papers by Massimo Ceruso in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sandra Pfanner in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Christian Carulli in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction Until the late 1980s, finger joint prosthetic reconstruction had been almost exclusively performed by using monobloc silicone spacers as developed by Swanson et al more than 20 years previously. 1 Such implants are not fixed
Search for other papers by Bryant Ho in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Judith Baumhauer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
arthroplasty began historically with silastic implants and progressed to all-metal implants and, more recently, synthetic cartilage implants. Both first and second generation silastic implants have been found to be associated with high rates of osteolysis with
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
to good results have been reported for both primary 4 , 5 and revision surgery of RHA. 6 Implant revision and removal rates up to 8% at four years have been described. 4 More recent studies showed conflicting 10-year survival numbers
Search for other papers by E. Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Noiles rotating hinge knee prosthesis 46 The Finn rotating hinge 47 Indications for hinged implants in primary total knee arthroplasty In 2014, Gerhke et al analysed the role of hinges in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA
Search for other papers by Alessio Bernasconi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by François Lintz in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Francesco Sadile in
Google Scholar
PubMed
’ to describe a similar procedure, that is to say, the insertion of a bone graft in the sinus tarsi fixed by a temporary staple. 52 Very soon the idea of placing an external synthetic implant in the sinus tarsi to support the talus on the calcaneus
Search for other papers by Kinner Davda in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Karan Malhotra in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Paul O’Donnell in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dishan Singh in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nicholas Cullen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
fibrotic, a staged approach can be used: the first stage involves excising the scarred tissue and implanting a 6 mm silastic rod in the peroneal muscle bed, suturing it to the distal tendon. The second stage is performed six to 12 weeks later when a
