Patient-specific hip prostheses designed by surgeons
Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering, ISSN: 2364-5504, Vol: 2, Issue: 1, Page: 565-567
2016
- 3Citations
- 12Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Conference Paper Description
Patient-specific bone and joint replacement implants lead to better functional and aesthetic results than conventional methods [1–3]. But extracting 3D shape information from CT Data and designing individual implants is demanding and requires multiple surgeon-to-engineer interactions. For manufacturing purposes, Additive Manufacturing offers various advantages, especially for low volume manufacturing parts, such as patient specific implants. To ease these new approaches and to avoid surgeon-to-engineer interactions a new design software approach is needed which offers highly automated and user friendly planning steps.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know