Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Individuelle Ergebniskontrolle

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
AE-Manual der Endoprothetik

  • 6387 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Die Implantation einer Hüftendoprothese ist die erfolgreichste Operation in der Orthopädie (J Bone Joint Surg Am 83A:1598–1610, 2001; Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 136:39–43, 1998). Eine stetig steigende Zahl an Eingriffen zeigt den wachsenden Bedarf in einer immer älter werdenden Gesellschaft mit hohen Ansprüchen an ihre Mobilität. Sie zeugt jedoch auch von der hohen Patientenzufriedenheit, die durch exzellente Ergebnisse erzielt wird (Radiologe 46:779–784, 2006). Die Veränderung und Verbesserung von Material, Design und Implantationstechnik hat zu einer deutlichen Reduktion von Früh- und Spätkomplikationen geführt, weshalb sowohl das funktionelle Ergebnis als auch die Standzeit von Implantaten in der modernen Endoprothetik sehr gut geworden sind.

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 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Beaule PE, Krismer M, Mayrhofer P et al (2005) EBRA-FCA for measurement of migration of the femoral component in surface arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:741–744

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Biedermann R, Krismer M, Stöckl B et al (1999) Accuracy of EBRA-FCA in the measurement of migration of femoral components of total hip replacement. Einzel-Bild-Rontgen-Analyse-femoral component analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:266–272

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm TD, Kirschner S, Köhler M et al (2005) The German Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire: reliability, validity, responsiveness, and comparison with the Short Form 36 and Constant score – a prospective evaluation of patients undergoing repair for rotator cuff tear. Rheumatol Int 25:86–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks R (1996) EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37:53–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt JJ, Rondinelli RD (2001) Goniometric techniques for range-of-motion assessment. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 12:507–527

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grubl A (2006) Results of cementless hip arthroplasty. Radiologe 46:779–784

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) „Modes of failure“ of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–755

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Herrlin K, Selvik G, Pettersson H (1986) Space orientation of total hip prosthesis. A method for three-dimensional determination. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 27:619–627

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huo MH, Cook SM (2001) What’s new in hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83A:1598–1610

    Google Scholar 

  • Janda V (1976) Procedures in therapeutic rehabilitation. Cesk Pediatr 31:365–366

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kiebzak GM, Vain PA, Gregory AM, Mokris JG, Mauerhan DR (1997) SF-36 general health status survey to determine patient satisfaction at short-term follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. J South Orthop Assoc 6:169–172

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp ME (1967) Measuring range of motion. Postgrad Med 42(Suppl):A123–A127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • König HH, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC (2005) Health Status of the German population: results of a representative survey using the EuroQol questionnaire. Gesundheitswesen 67:173–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krismer M, Bauer R, Tschupik J, Mayrhofer P (1995) EBRA: a method to measure migration of acetabular components. J Biomech 28:1225–1236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mjoberg B (1991) Fixation and loosening of hip prostheses. A review. Acta Orthop Scand 62:500–508

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mjoberg B, Hansson LI, Selvik G (1984) Instability, migration and laxity of total hip prostheses. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric study. Acta Orthop Scand 55:141–145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Russe W (1988) Roentgen photogrammetry of the artificial hip joint acetabulum. Aktuelle Probl Chir Orthop 32:1–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Selvik G, Alberius P, Aronson AS (1983) A roentgen stereophotogrammetric system. Construction, calibration and technical accuracy. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 24:343–352

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simank HG, Brocai DR, Rode S, Lukoschek M (1998) Diagnosis of hip prosthesis loosening – sensitivity of clinical parameters. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 136:39–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall AG, Elke R, Theiler R (1996) Evaluation of a German questionnaire version of the Lequesne cox- and gonarthrosis indices. Z Rheumatol 55:50–57

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stucki G, Sangha O, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall A, Dick W, Theiler R (1998) Comparison of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) osteoarthritis index and a self-report format of the self-administered Lequesne-Algofunctional index in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 6:79–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, Haus 29, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland

    Dr. med. Jan Mettelsiefen

Authors
  1. Dr. med. Jan Mettelsiefen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Mettelsiefen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Forschung und Biomechanik, Universität Ulm / Inst. für Unfallchir., Helmholtzstraße 14, Ulm, 89081, Germany

    Lutz Claes

  2. St. Vinzenz- und Elisabeth-Hospital, Katholisches Klinikum Mainz, An der Goldgrube 11, Mainz, 55131, Germany

    Peter Kirschner

  3. Campus Charité Mitte (CCM), Centrum f. Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, 10117, Germany

    Carsten Perka

  4. Orthopädische Klinik, König Ludwig Haus, Universität Würzburg, Brettreichstraße 11, Würzburg, 97074, Germany

    Maximilian Rudert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Arbeitsgemeinschaft Endoprothetik

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mettelsiefen, J. (2012). Individuelle Ergebniskontrolle. In: Claes, L., Kirschner, P., Perka, C., Rudert, M. (eds) AE-Manual der Endoprothetik. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14646-6_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14646-6_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-14645-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-14646-6

  • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation