The cost benefit of total knee arthroplasty

Orthopedics

Volumn 19, Issue 9, 1996, Pages 777-779

  Rorabeck, Cecil H ^a   Murray, P ^a  

^a LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OSTEOARTHRITIS; REVIEW; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CANADA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; KNEE PROSTHESIS; REOPERATION; SICKNESS IMPACT PROFILE; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 0029788257     PISSN: 01477447     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Bartel DL, Bicknell VL, Wright TM. The effect of conformity, thickness and material on stresses in ultra-high-molecular weight components for total joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 1986; 68A:1041-1051.
2. Bayley JC, Scott RD, Ewald FC, Holmes GB. Failure of the metal backed patellar component after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 1988; 70A:668-674.
3. Bell RS, Schatzker J, Fornasier VL, Goodman SB. A study of implant failure in the Wagner resurfacing arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 1985; 67A:1165-1175.
4. Bloebaum RD, Nelson K, Dorr LD, Hoffmann M, Lyman D. Investigation of early surface delamination observed in retrieved heat pressed tibial inserts. Clin Orthop. 1991; 269:120-127.
5. Blunn GW, Walker PS, Joshi A, Hardinge K. The dominance of cyclic sliding in producing wear in total knee replacements. Clin Orthop. 1991; 273:253-260.
6. Gordon M, Bullough PG. Synovial and osseous inflammation in failed silicone-rubber prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg. 1982; 64A:574-580.
7. Hungerford DS, Kenna RV, Krackow K. The porous coated anatomic total knee. Orthop Clin North Am. 1982; 13:103-122.
8. Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Laupacis A, Feeney D, Wong C, Tugwell P, Leslie K, Bullas R. A double blind study of 250 cases comparing cemented with cementless total hip arthroplasty. Cost-effectiveness and its impact on health-related quality of life. Clin Orthop. 1994; 298:156-164.
9. Laupacis A, Feeney D, Detsky AS, Tugwell AX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluation. Can Med Assoc J. 1992; 146:473-481.
10. Laupacis A, Bourne RB, et al. Cost of elective total hip arthroplasty during the first year. Cemented versus non-cemented. J Arthroplasty. 1994; 9:481-487.
11. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, Gilson BS. The sickness implant profile. Development and final revision of a health status measure. Medical Care. 1981; 19:787-805.
12. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott NW. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop. 1989; 248:13-14.
13. Harris WH. Traumatic Arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: Treatment by mould arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 1969; 51A:737-755.
14. Merle d'Aubigne R, Postel M. Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg. 1954; 36A:451.
15. Bellamy N, Buchanan W, Goldsmith C, Campbell T, Stiff L. Validation study of the WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988; 15:1833-1840.