Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature
Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of d...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Christ, Alexander B. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2021transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
6 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS - 2012, an official publication of Delhi Orthopaedic Association, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:19 ; year:2021 ; pages:11-16 ; extent:6 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV054537568 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV054537568 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230626040402.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 210910s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001453.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV054537568 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0976-5662(21)00254-X | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 610 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 150 |q VZ |
| 100 | 1 | |a Christ, Alexander B. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 6 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. | ||
| 520 | |a Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Endoprosthesis |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Cementless |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Sarcoma |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Cement |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Distal femoral replacement |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hornicek, Francis J. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fabbri, Nicola |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier |t PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS |d 2012 |d an official publication of Delhi Orthopaedic Association |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV016334612 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:19 |g year:2021 |g pages:11-16 |g extent:6 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 19 |j 2021 |h 11-16 |g 6 | ||
| author_variant |
a b c ab abc |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
christalexanderbhornicekfrancisjfabbrini:2021----:itleoarpaeeteetdreetesurncneta |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2021transfer abstract |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001453.pica (DE-627)ELV054537568 (ELSEVIER)S0976-5662(21)00254-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 150 VZ Christ, Alexander B. verfasserin aut Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature 2021transfer abstract 6 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. Endoprosthesis Elsevier Cementless Elsevier Sarcoma Elsevier Cement Elsevier Distal femoral replacement Elsevier Hornicek, Francis J. oth Fabbri, Nicola oth Enthalten in Elsevier PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS 2012 an official publication of Delhi Orthopaedic Association Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV016334612 volume:19 year:2021 pages:11-16 extent:6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U AR 19 2021 11-16 6 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001453.pica (DE-627)ELV054537568 (ELSEVIER)S0976-5662(21)00254-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 150 VZ Christ, Alexander B. verfasserin aut Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature 2021transfer abstract 6 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. Endoprosthesis Elsevier Cementless Elsevier Sarcoma Elsevier Cement Elsevier Distal femoral replacement Elsevier Hornicek, Francis J. oth Fabbri, Nicola oth Enthalten in Elsevier PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS 2012 an official publication of Delhi Orthopaedic Association Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV016334612 volume:19 year:2021 pages:11-16 extent:6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U AR 19 2021 11-16 6 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001453.pica (DE-627)ELV054537568 (ELSEVIER)S0976-5662(21)00254-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 150 VZ Christ, Alexander B. verfasserin aut Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature 2021transfer abstract 6 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. Endoprosthesis Elsevier Cementless Elsevier Sarcoma Elsevier Cement Elsevier Distal femoral replacement Elsevier Hornicek, Francis J. oth Fabbri, Nicola oth Enthalten in Elsevier PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS 2012 an official publication of Delhi Orthopaedic Association Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV016334612 volume:19 year:2021 pages:11-16 extent:6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U AR 19 2021 11-16 6 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001453.pica (DE-627)ELV054537568 (ELSEVIER)S0976-5662(21)00254-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 150 VZ Christ, Alexander B. verfasserin aut Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature 2021transfer abstract 6 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. Endoprosthesis Elsevier Cementless Elsevier Sarcoma Elsevier Cement Elsevier Distal femoral replacement Elsevier Hornicek, Francis J. oth Fabbri, Nicola oth Enthalten in Elsevier PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS 2012 an official publication of Delhi Orthopaedic Association Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV016334612 volume:19 year:2021 pages:11-16 extent:6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U AR 19 2021 11-16 6 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001453.pica (DE-627)ELV054537568 (ELSEVIER)S0976-5662(21)00254-X DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 610 VZ 150 VZ Christ, Alexander B. verfasserin aut Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature 2021transfer abstract 6 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. Endoprosthesis Elsevier Cementless Elsevier Sarcoma Elsevier Cement Elsevier Distal femoral replacement Elsevier Hornicek, Francis J. oth Fabbri, Nicola oth Enthalten in Elsevier PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS 2012 an official publication of Delhi Orthopaedic Association Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV016334612 volume:19 year:2021 pages:11-16 extent:6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U AR 19 2021 11-16 6 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:19 year:2021 pages:11-16 extent:6 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:19 year:2021 pages:11-16 extent:6 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Endoprosthesis Cementless Sarcoma Cement Distal femoral replacement |
| dewey-raw |
610 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Christ, Alexander B. @@aut@@ Hornicek, Francis J. @@oth@@ Fabbri, Nicola @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV016334612 |
| dewey-sort |
3610 |
| id |
ELV054537568 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV054537568</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626040402.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210910s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001453.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV054537568</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0976-5662(21)00254-X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">150</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Christ, Alexander B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Endoprosthesis</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Cementless</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Sarcoma</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Cement</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Distal femoral replacement</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hornicek, Francis J.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fabbri, Nicola</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="t">PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS</subfield><subfield code="d">2012</subfield><subfield code="d">an official publication of Delhi Orthopaedic Association</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV016334612</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:11-16</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="h">11-16</subfield><subfield code="g">6</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Christ, Alexander B. |
| spellingShingle |
Christ, Alexander B. ddc 610 ddc 150 Elsevier Endoprosthesis Elsevier Cementless Elsevier Sarcoma Elsevier Cement Elsevier Distal femoral replacement Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature |
| authorStr |
Christ, Alexander B. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV016334612 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
610 - Medicine & health 150 - Psychology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
610 VZ 150 VZ Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature Endoprosthesis Elsevier Cementless Elsevier Sarcoma Elsevier Cement Elsevier Distal femoral replacement Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 610 ddc 150 Elsevier Endoprosthesis Elsevier Cementless Elsevier Sarcoma Elsevier Cement Elsevier Distal femoral replacement |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 610 ddc 150 Elsevier Endoprosthesis Elsevier Cementless Elsevier Sarcoma Elsevier Cement Elsevier Distal femoral replacement |
| topic_browse |
ddc 610 ddc 150 Elsevier Endoprosthesis Elsevier Cementless Elsevier Sarcoma Elsevier Cement Elsevier Distal femoral replacement |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
f j h fj fjh n f nf |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV016334612 |
| dewey-tens |
610 - Medicine & health 150 - Psychology |
| hierarchy_top_title |
PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV016334612 |
| title |
Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV054537568 (ELSEVIER)S0976-5662(21)00254-X |
| title_full |
Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature |
| author_sort |
Christ, Alexander B. |
| journal |
PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS |
| journalStr |
PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology 100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2021 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
11 |
| author_browse |
Christ, Alexander B. |
| container_volume |
19 |
| physical |
6 |
| class |
610 VZ 150 VZ |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Christ, Alexander B. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 |
| dewey-full |
610 150 |
| title_sort |
distal femoral replacement – cemented or cementless? current concepts and review of the literature |
| title_auth |
Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature |
| abstract |
Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. |
| abstractGer |
Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U |
| title_short |
Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Hornicek, Francis J. Fabbri, Nicola |
| author2Str |
Hornicek, Francis J. Fabbri, Nicola |
| ppnlink |
ELV016334612 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T21:59:53.002Z |
| _version_ |
1803868640906313728 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV054537568</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626040402.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210910s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001453.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV054537568</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0976-5662(21)00254-X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">610</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">150</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Christ, Alexander B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Distal femoral replacement – Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Endoprosthesis</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Cementless</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Sarcoma</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Cement</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Distal femoral replacement</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hornicek, Francis J.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fabbri, Nicola</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier</subfield><subfield code="t">PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL BRAIN CHANGES IN INDIVIDUALS WITH AN AT-RISK MENTAL STATE OF PSYCHOSIS</subfield><subfield code="d">2012</subfield><subfield code="d">an official publication of Delhi Orthopaedic Association</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV016334612</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:11-16</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="h">11-16</subfield><subfield code="g">6</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4006395 |