A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data.
about
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the glass half full or half empty?Higher revision risk for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in low-volume hospitals.Mortality and implant revision rates of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: registry based cohort study.Short-term survival of the trabecular metal cup is similar to that of standard cups used in acetabular revision surgery.Using financial incentives to improve value in orthopaedics.When do patient-reported assessments peak after revision knee arthroplasty?Spinal disorders, quality-based healthcare and spinal registersHip resurfacing: a systematic review of literatureReliability of patient-reported functional outcome in a joint replacement registry. A comparison of primary responders and non-responders in the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry.A Cohort Study Predicts Better Functional Outcomes and Equivalent Patient Satisfaction Following UKR Compared with TKRResults of a French multicentre retrospective experience with four hundred and eighteen failed unicondylar knee arthroplastiesThe Oxford unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice.Incorporating patient-reported outcomes in total joint arthroplasty registries: challenges and opportunitiesCORR Insights ®: The Oxford unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice.Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty enables near normal gait at higher speeds, unlike total knee arthroplasty.Cemented versus Uncemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Is There a Difference?Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty survivorship is lower than TKA survivorship: a 27-year Finnish registry study.Causes of revision following Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Registry data allow great progress, but must be interpreted with caution.Hospital volume and the risk of revision in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Nordic countries -an observational study of 14,496 cases.Advantages and limitations of national arthroplasty registries. The need for multicenter registries: the Rempro-SBQ.Choosing Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Replacement: What Can Economic Evaluations Tell Us? A Systematic Review.Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review.Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement: a population-based study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.Outcomes and early revision rate after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: prospective results from a non-designer single surgeon.Early migration of the cemented tibial component of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a radiostereometry study
P2860
Q26782749-122B6D35-5DCB-4D09-B6BE-5FECFB88AEA7Q33929096-4EBEEFFB-0DCD-404B-B705-91ED0EF0E6DDQ34304762-23E88CA7-2D38-4604-BEFA-BFBCD5DF65B4Q35197650-B8B53C65-CB02-42D3-9AC5-2D57E2A438CFQ35802918-DC0AE637-2FA3-4FC2-B538-9B60BC1BDB7EQ35946647-72B6C9A5-BBED-42E6-9DCF-87D9CBDDFB44Q36044203-06F0569B-45D4-4CE8-A8D6-11B86599A7D9Q36427902-2C138EDA-5172-42E4-AB81-66B30B9B058DQ36645575-E9EDE419-4CA3-49E7-8FCF-62787DE9AE41Q36807794-F4D6F7E2-453E-4159-A4FB-5E23529EF5A8Q36937799-E1E17F0A-E38B-4B0C-9887-3BD170FA6FE0Q37219503-C1ADBBBE-B9D1-4778-A807-5C4D6DCB40E0Q37219536-1FF7B823-9EE1-463B-B51B-39DFB4D3AB28Q37219655-8779D031-717E-4CFF-8FAD-C6CB56F0EB81Q37258565-5516EDAB-FCD3-45A5-AC5D-7D1F767D8016Q37412273-94750166-E831-4CB5-A4CF-7DE7C9541DC6Q37676548-AF1D45F5-5E24-47CE-AAFD-6F40FD5E1185Q38133379-44138A57-DF08-4451-96A1-E973504D1955Q38686481-19B57423-0FF4-4821-9268-48BA3F8CC818Q40052963-1E90D46A-7098-4733-A93C-E3469B0FFDBFQ42366414-22171707-440A-4F0D-A7D6-EA0F707F72E8Q47118286-85578B5E-50D9-48BA-A32F-5943FFA4CDA2Q49561146-1247293E-BA88-4BCC-B4BE-9FE4B8D1F939Q53828055-CA2F29F9-089F-4ECB-85BD-82BCB3EC5295Q55021723-6507335B-01D8-416E-89D9-4D8EA3ECF90FQ56977032-2BAE6B44-B0DE-46A5-B1F7-07CD77CBC87F
P2860
A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data.
description
2010 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2010 թուականի Դեկտեմբերին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2010 թվականի դեկտեմբերին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2010年の論文
@ja
2010年学术文章
@wuu
2010年学术文章
@zh-cn
2010年学术文章
@zh-hans
2010年学术文章
@zh-my
2010年学术文章
@zh-sg
2010年學術文章
@yue
name
A critique of revision rate as ...... n of knee joint registry data.
@ast
A critique of revision rate as ...... n of knee joint registry data.
@en
type
label
A critique of revision rate as ...... n of knee joint registry data.
@ast
A critique of revision rate as ...... n of knee joint registry data.
@en
prefLabel
A critique of revision rate as ...... n of knee joint registry data.
@ast
A critique of revision rate as ...... n of knee joint registry data.
@en
P2093
P1476
A critique of revision rate as ...... n of knee joint registry data.
@en
P2093
D W Murray
J J O'Connor
J W Goodfellow
P304
P356
10.1302/0301-620X.92B12.25193
P577
2010-12-01T00:00:00Z