Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Range of Motion von Hüftendoprothesen — Leitlinien zu Implantatdesign und -positionierung

  • Chapter
Computer Assisted Orthopedic Surgery

Part of the book series: Fortbildung Orthopädie - Traumatologie ((FORTORTHO,volume 6))

  • 39 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Die Indikationsstellung zum künstlichen Hüftgelenkersatz hat sich auf ein jüngeres und insbesondere aktiveres Patientenklientel erweitert. Maximale bzw. freie postoperative Beweglichkeit im künstlichen Hüftgelenk ist deshalb ein wichtiger Einflussfaktor für dessen ungestörte Langzeitfunktion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Bader RJ, Steinhauser E, Willmann G, Gradinger R (2001) The effects of implant position, design and wear on the range of motion after total hip arthroplasty. Hip International 11:80–90

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bader RJ, Bunz U, Scholz R, Steinhauser E, Will-mann G (2001) Range of Motion von Hüftendoprothesen - Problematik der Begriffsbestimmung. Osteologie (Suppl 2) 10:180

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bernsmann K, Langlotz U, Ansari B, Wiese M (2000) Computerassistierte navigierte Pfannenplatzierung in der Hüftendoprothetik - Anwendungsstudie im klinischen Routinealltag. Z Orthop 138: 515–521

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dahlen C, Zwipp H (2001) Computer-assistierte OP-Planung. Unfallchirurg 104:466–479

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Eggli S, Pisan M, Müller ME (1998) The value of preoperative planning for total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:382–390

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Harkness JW, Guyton JL, LaVelle D, McKinnon B, Tozakoglou E (2000) Variations in design of ante-verted acetabular liners in THR. Scientific exhibit presented at the AAOS Meeting, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hassan DM, Johnston GFH, Dust WNC, Watson G, Dolovich AT (1998) Accuracy of intraoperative assessment of acetabular prosthesis placement. J Arthroplasty 13:80–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kapandji IA (1992) Funktionelle Anatomie der Gelenke. Ferdinand Enke Verlag, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kennedy JG, Rogers WB, Soffe KE, Sullivan RJ, Griffen DG, Sheehan LJ (1998) Effect of acetabular component orientation on recurrent dislocation, pelvic osteolysis, polyethylene wear, and component migration. J Arthroplasty 13:530–534

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kohn D, Rührmann O, Wirth CJ (1997) Die Verrenkung der Hüfttotalendoprothese unter besonderer Beachtung verschiedener Zugangswege. Z Orthop 135:40–44

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after Total Hip-Replacement Arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60:217–220

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McAuley JP, Ridgeway SR (2001) Preoperative planning to prevent dislocation of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am 32:579–586

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McCollum DE, Gray WJ (1990) Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 261:159–170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Murray DW (1992) Impingement and loosening of the long posterior wall acetabular implant. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:377–379

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Seki M, Yuasa N, Ohkuni K (1998) Analysis of Optimal Range of Socket Orientations in Total Hip Arthroplasty with Use of Computer-Aided Design Simulation. J Orthop Res 16:513–517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. R. Bader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Steinhauser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Willmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. Mittelmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Gradinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung und Poliklinik für Sportorthopädie, TU München, Connollystraße 32, München, 80809, Deutschland

    Andreas B. Imhoff

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bader, R., Steinhauser, E., Willmann, G., Mittelmeier, W., Gradinger, R. (2002). Range of Motion von Hüftendoprothesen — Leitlinien zu Implantatdesign und -positionierung. In: Imhoff, A.B. (eds) Computer Assisted Orthopedic Surgery. Fortbildung Orthopädie - Traumatologie, vol 6. Steinkopff, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57527-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57527-3_8

  • Publisher Name: Steinkopff, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-7985-1184-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-57527-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation