The effects of femur and implant position on the radiographic assessment of total hip femoral implants in dogs

Veterinary Surgery

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 349-357

  Jehn, Carl T ^a   Manley, Paul A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; CANIS FAMILIARIS;

ANIMAL; ANIMAL DISEASE; ARTICLE; BODY POSTURE; CADAVER; DOG; FEMUR; HIP; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HIP PROSTHESIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ANIMALS; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; CADAVER; DOGS; FEMUR; HIP JOINT; HIP PROSTHESIS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; POSTURE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 0036654117     PISSN: 01613499     EISSN: 1532950X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/jvet.2002.33614     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Olmstead ML: The canine cemented modular total hip prosthesis. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 31:109-124, 1995
2. Manley PA: The hip joint, in Slatter DJ (ed): Textbook of Small Animal Surgery, Philadelphia, PA, Saunders 1993, pp 1786-1805
3. Total Hip Replacement: NIH Consensus Statement 12:1-31, 1994
4. Edwards MR, Egger EL, Schwartz PD: Aseptic loosening of the femoral implant after cemented total hip arthroplasty in dogs: 11 cases in 10dogs (1991-1995). J Am Vet Med Assoc 211:580-586, 1997
5. Schulz KS, Vasseur PB, 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 59:1071-1079, 1998
6. Dorr LD, Lewonowski K, Lucero M, et al: Failure mechanisms of anatomic porous replacement in cementless total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 334:157-167, 1997
7. Wylie KB, DeYoung DJ, Drost RT, et al: The effect of surgical approach on femoral stem position in canine cemented total hip arthroplasty. Vet Surg 26:62-66, 1997
8. Schulz KS, Nielsen, BS, Stover SM, et al: Comparison of the fit and geometry of reconstruction of femoral components of four cemented canine total hip replacement implants. Am J Vet Res 61:1113-1121, 2000
9. Konde LJ, Olmstead ML, Hohn RB: Radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement in the dog. Vet Radiol 23:98-106, 1982
10. Massat BJ, Vasseur PB: Clinical and radiographic results of total hip arthroplasty in dogs: 96 cases (1986-1992). J Am Vet Med Assoc 205:448-454, 1994
11. Harris WH, Maloney WJ: Hybrid total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 249:22-29, 1989
12. Schulz KS, Stover SM, Kass PH, et al: Effect of surgical technique and use of a rigid centralizing device on stem positioning and geometric reconstruction in the sagittal plane during total hip replacement in canine cadavers. Am J Vet Res 60:1126-1135, 1999
13. Dyce J, Wisner ER, Wang Q, et al: Evaluation of risk factors for luxation after total hip replacements in dogs. Vet Surg 29:524-532, 2000
14. Cross AR, Newell SM, Chambers JN, et al: Acetabular component orientation as an indicator of implant luxation in cemented total hip arthroplasty. Vet Surg 29:517-523, 2000
15. Maloney WJ, Sychterz C, Bragdon, C, et al: Skeletal response to well fixed femoral components inserted with and without cement. Clin Orthop 333:15-26, 1996
16. Shanbhag AS, Jacobs JJ, Giant TT, et al: Composition and morphology of wear debris in failed uncemented total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 76:60-67, 1994
17. Amstutz HC, Campbell P, McKellop H, et al: Metal on metal total hip replacement. Workshop Consensus Document. Clin Orthop 329S:S297-S303, 1996
18. Estok DM, Orr TE, Harris WH: Factors affecting cement strains near the tip of a cemented femoral component. J Arthroplasty 12:40-48, 1997