Comparison of the fit and geometry of reconstruction of femoral components of four cemented canine total hip replacement implants

American Journal of Veterinary Research

Volumn 61, Issue 9, 2000, Pages 1113-1121

  Schulz, Kurt S ^a   Nielsen, Cheri ^a   Stover, Susan M ^a   Kass, Philip H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMATERIAL;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL DISEASE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DOG; DOG DISEASE; EVALUATION; FEMUR; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HIP PROSTHESIS; INSTRUMENTATION; PATHOLOGY;

ANIMALS; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; BIOCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS; DOG DISEASES; DOGS; FEMUR; HIP PROSTHESIS;

EID: 0034277562     PISSN: 00029645     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.2000.61.1113     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Edwards MR, Egger EL, Schwarz PD. Aseptic loosening of the femoral implant after cemented total hip arthroplasty in dogs: 11 cases in 10 dogs (1991-1995). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1997;211: 580-586.
2. Estok DM, Orr TE, Harris WH. Factors affecting cement strains near the tip of a cemented femoral component. J Arthroplasty 1997;12:40-48.
3. O'Connor DO, Burke DW, Jast M, et al. In vitro measurement of strain in the bone cement surrounding the femoral component of total hip replacements during simulated gait and stair climbing. J Orthop Res 1996;14:769-777.
4. Schulz KS, Vasseur P, Stover SM, et al. Transverse plane evaluation of the effects of surgical technique on stem positioning and geometry of reconstruction in canine total hip replacement. Am J Vet Res 1998;59:1071-1079.
5. McGrory BJ, Morrey BF, Cahalan TD, et al. Effect of femoral offset on range of motion and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1995;77:865-869.
6. Ruff CB, Hayes WC. Cross-sectional geometry of pecos pueblo femora and tibiae - a biomechanical investigation: I. Method and general patterns of variation. Am J Phys Anthroplosty 1983;60: 359-381.
7. Rumph PF, Hathcock JT. A symmetric axis-based method for measuring the projected femoral angle of inclination in dogs. Vet Surg 1990;19:328-333.
8. Noble PC, Alexander JW, Lindahl LJ, et al. The anatomic basis of femoral component design. Clin Orthop 1988;235:148-164.
9. Montavon PM, Hohn RB, Olmstead ML, et al. Inclination and anteversion angles of the femoral head and neck in the dog: evaluation of a standard method of measurement. Vet Surg 1985;14:277-282.
10. Jasty M. Fixation by methyl methacrylate. In: Rosenberg AG, Rubash HE, eds. The adult hip. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998;187-200.
11. Andriacchi TP, Galante JO, Bebytschko TB, et al. Stress analysis of the femoral stem in total hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 1976;58:618-624.
12. Crowninshield RD, Brand R, Johnston RC, et al. An analysis of femoral component stem design in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1980;62:68-78.
13. Massat BJ, Vasseur PB. Clinical and radiographic results of total hip arthroplasty in dogs: 96 cases (1986-1992). J Am Vet Med Assoc 1994;205:448-454.
14. Jasty M, Webster W, Harris WH. Management of limb length inequality during total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 1996;333:165-171.
15. Litsky AS, Spector M. Biomaterials. In: Simon SR, ed. Basic orthopaedic science. Columbus: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1994;447-486
16. Huiskes R, Verdura J, Verdonschot N. Biomechanics of artificial joints: the hip. In: Mow VC, Hayes WC, eds. Basic orthopaedic biomechanics. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997;395-460.