2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.08.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stability Differentials for Proximal vs Distal Fusion of Total Hip Arthroplasty Femoral Impaction Grafts

Abstract: In impaction grafting for revision joint arthroplasty, the morselized cancellous bone (MCB) ideally remodels into a new contiguous lattice. However, the use of biologically active factors may sometimes be indicated to enhance fusion. The purpose of this study was to determine the stability of femoral impaction graft constructs for which either only the proximal or distal half of the MCB volume was modeled as fused. Fusing the proximal half of the impaction graft volume resulted in a higher femoral stem stabili… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 26 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Investigations in the primary stability of THA femoral components have utilized bench 246 testing in cadaveric [23,24,25,31,32] and composite [18,[33][34][35][36][37][38] femur specimens, as 247 well as finite element analysis [23,24,34,39,40] in reporting a wide range of stability 248 data, dependent on measurement techniques, loading profiles, and setup design. Prior in 249 vitro THA micromotion studies have primarily used linear variable differential 250 transformer (LVDT) or differential variable reluctance transducer (DVRT) sensors to 251 quantify implant stability: instrumentation which typically require complex 252 instrumentation to be rigidly fixed to the specimens and allow for displacement 253 measurements at a single point in space [31, 33-37, 40-43, 48].…”
Section: Femoral Component Micromotion 148mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Investigations in the primary stability of THA femoral components have utilized bench 246 testing in cadaveric [23,24,25,31,32] and composite [18,[33][34][35][36][37][38] femur specimens, as 247 well as finite element analysis [23,24,34,39,40] in reporting a wide range of stability 248 data, dependent on measurement techniques, loading profiles, and setup design. Prior in 249 vitro THA micromotion studies have primarily used linear variable differential 250 transformer (LVDT) or differential variable reluctance transducer (DVRT) sensors to 251 quantify implant stability: instrumentation which typically require complex 252 instrumentation to be rigidly fixed to the specimens and allow for displacement 253 measurements at a single point in space [31, 33-37, 40-43, 48].…”
Section: Femoral Component Micromotion 148mentioning
confidence: 99%