Corrigendum to ‘A Comparison of Modular Tapered Versus Modular Cylindrical Stems for Complex Femoral Revisions’ [Journal of Arthroplasty 28 Suppl. 1 (2013) 71–73] (S0883540313004890) (10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.052));A comparison of modular tapered versus modular cylindrical stems for complex femoral revisions

Journal of Arthroplasty

Volumn 28, Issue 8 SUPPL, 2013, Pages 71-73

  Bedair, Hany ^a   Tetrault, Matthew ^b   Choi, Ho Rim ^a   Mayle, Robert ^b   Bashyal, Ravi ^a   Abbot, Daniel ^b   Eberhardt, Jamie ^a   Sporer, Scott ^b,c   Valle, Craig Della ^b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c Cadence Health ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Cylindrical modular stems; Femoral revisions; Hip replacement complications; Modular femoral components; Revision total hip arthroplasty; Tapered modular stems

Indexed keywords

TITANIUM;

ARTICLE; BODY MASS; BONE REGENERATION; COMPLEX FEMORAL REVISION; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMUR FRACTURE; FOLLOW UP; HARRIS HIP SCORE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; JOINT DISLOCATION; MODULAR CYLINDRICAL STEM; MODULAR TAPERED STEM; ORTHOPEDIC PROSTHESES, ORTHOSES AND IMPLANTS; PERIPROSTHETIC FEMUR FRACTURE; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; RECURRENT DISLOCATION; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; X RAY FILM;

CYLINDRICAL MODULAR STEMS; FEMORAL REVISIONS; HIP REPLACEMENT COMPLICATIONS; MODULAR FEMORAL COMPONENTS; REVISION TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY; TAPERED MODULAR STEMS;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; FEMALE; FEMUR NECK; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HIP JOINT; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MALE; OSSEOINTEGRATION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84884147424     PISSN: 08835403     EISSN: 15328406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.07.036     Document Type: Erratum

References (11)

1. Cue G, Ling R, Linder L. Impacted cancellous allografts and cement for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Suri 1993;7SB: 14 21, 1993.
2. Engh C.A., Glassman A.H., Griffin W.L., et al. Results of cementless revision for failed cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988, 91(235).
3. Krishnamurthy A.B., MacDonald S.J., Paprosky W.G. 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 1997, 12(8):839.
4. Lawrence J.M., Engh C.A., Macalino G.E., et al. Outcome of revision hip arthroplasty done without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994, 76(7):965.
5. Aribindi R., Barba M., Solomon M.I., et al. Bypass fixation. Orthop Clin North Am 1998, 29(2):319.
6. Weeden S.H., Paprosky W.G. Minimal 11-year follow-up of extensively porous-coated stems in femoral revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2002, 17(4):134.
7. Paprosky W.G., Sporer S.M. Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003, 417:203.
8. Böhm P., Bischel O. Femoral revision with the Wagner SL revision stem evaluation of One hundred and twenty-nine revisions followed for a mean of 4.8 years. J Bone Jt Surg Am 2001, 83(7):1023.
9. Della C.J., Wayne G. Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) 2003, 85(suppl_4):2003.
10. Harris W.H. 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 Am 1969, 51(4):737.
11. Kirk K.L., Potter B.K., Lehman R.A., et al. Effect of distal stem geometry on interface motion in uncemented revision total hip prostheses. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2007, 36(10):545.