Modern Hip Resurfacing 2009
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-84800-088-9_11
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Acetabular Bone Conservation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 3 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The coverage angle, which represents the coverage of the femoral head by the acetabular component, is also less in the BHR relative to conventional hip arthroplasties. The relative coverage of the femoral head decreases as the size of the components decrease; this results in a reduction in peripheral cover for the femoral head and is less forgiving of minor surgical errors in component positioning and can lead to edge wear and device failure [12]. Furthermore, smaller component sizes have also been directly associated with higher wear rates [30].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The coverage angle, which represents the coverage of the femoral head by the acetabular component, is also less in the BHR relative to conventional hip arthroplasties. The relative coverage of the femoral head decreases as the size of the components decrease; this results in a reduction in peripheral cover for the femoral head and is less forgiving of minor surgical errors in component positioning and can lead to edge wear and device failure [12]. Furthermore, smaller component sizes have also been directly associated with higher wear rates [30].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%