The Effects of Technique Changes on Aseptic Loosening of the Femoral Component in Hip Resurfacing. Results of 600 Conserve Plus With a 3 to 9 Year Follow-up

References 

1. In:  Amstutz HC editors. Metal on metal hip prostheses: past performances and future directions. Philadelphia: Raven Publishers; 1996;p. S2
2. McMinn D, Treacy R, Lin K, et al. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Experience of the McMinn prothesis. Clin Orthop. 1996;(329 Suppl):S89
3. Wagner H, Wagner M. Metal/metal articulating interfaces. Orthopedics. 1996;19:749
   • MEDLINE
4. Rieker CB, Kottig P, Schon R, et al. Clinical wear performance of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties. In:  Jacobs J,  Craig TL editor. Alternative bearing surfaces in total joint replacements. Conshohocken: ASTM; 1998;p. 144
5. Amstutz H, Beaule P, Dorey F, et al. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg. 2004;86-A:28
6. Amstutz HC, Schmalzried TP, Noordin S, et al. The critical difference in hemi-surface replacement vs. total hip resurfacing: absence of a polyethylene acetabular component. In: 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials. 1998;p. 447
7. Amstutz HC, Campbell P, Kossovsky N, et al. Mechanism and clinical significance of wear debris-induced osteolysis. Clin Orthop. 1992;7
8. Doorn PF, Mirra JM, Campbell PA, et al. Tissue reaction to metal on metal total hip prostheses. Clin Orthop. 1996;S187
9. McKellop H, Park S-H, Chiesa R, et al. In vivo wear of three types of metal on metal hip prostheses during two decades of use. Clin Orthop. 1996;(329 Suppl):S128
10. Anissian HL, Stark A, Gustafson A, et al. Metal-on-metal bearing in hip prosthesis generates 100-fold less wear debris than metal-on-polyethylene. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999;70:578
    • MEDLINE
11. Beaulé P, Dorey F, Le Duff M, et al. Risk factors affecting early outcome of metal on metal surface arthroplasty of the hip in patients 40 years old and younger. Clin Orthop. 2004;418:87
12. Beaulé P, Lee J, Le Duff M, et al. Orientation of the femoral component in surface arthroplasty of the hip: a biomechanical and clinical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2004;86-A:2015
13. Amstutz H, Beaulé P, Le Duff M. Hybrid metal on metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Oper Tech Orthop. 2001;11:1
14. Beaulé P, Amstutz H. Surface arthroplasty of the hip revisited: current indications and surgical technique. In:  Singha R editors. Hip replacement: current trends and controversies. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2002;p. 261
15. Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, et al. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. A comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66A:228
16. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: how to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales. Lincoln (RI): Quality Metric Inc; 1998;
17. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg. 1969;51A:737
18. Hedley AK, Kabo M, Kim W, et al. Bony ingrowth fixation of newly designed acetabular components in a canine model. Clin Orthop. 1983;12:
19. Back DL, Young D, Shimmin A. Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:324
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
20. Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn D. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86B:177
21. Treacy R, McBryde C, Pynsent P. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty. A minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:167
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef