Hip replacement: clinical perspectives
Joint Replacement Technology, Page: 462-480
2008
- 1Citations
- 6Captures
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.
Book Chapter Description
Technological advances in hip replacement have reduced many of the problems that faced the arthroplasty surgeon. Modularity, larger femoral heads and bone conservation are the present trends in implant design as the mechanics and engineering have advanced. It is likely that the next generation of implants will move towards a deeper appreciation of the biological environment in which the implant performs. It is also likely that the main battlegrounds in the prevention of implant failure will remain similar; technical surgical issues, loosening and wear. It is likely that advances would be matched by an escalation of patient expectation. At each stage along the patient's clinical journey, innovation and advances in technology promise incrementally to help improve performance. At the same time, expectations from joint replacement are rising. Patients require more choices and more information. Widened indications for joint arthroplasty give rise to new challenges in selecting patients, assessing the best time for operating and preparing the patient for surgery. Digital radiographs are commonplace and digital templating software allows detailed planning and sizing of components in a way not feasible a few years ago. Although less widely available, three-dimensional reconstructions from computerized tomograms bridge the interface between operative planning and the surgery itself; commercial platforms now provide navigated placement of implants from these images.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781845692452500196; http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/9781845694807.4.462; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84892537655&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9781845692452500196; https://dx.doi.org/10.1533/9781845694807.4.462
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know