Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 1/2021

01-02-2021 | Hip-TEP | Hot Topics

Femoral Stem Cementation in Hip Arthroplasty: The Know-How of a “Lost” Art

Authors: Ahmed K. Emara, Mitchell Ng, Viktor E. Krebs, Michael Bloomfield, Robert M. Molloy, Nicolas S. Piuzzi

Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To describe the (1) indications, (2) preoperative precautions, and (3) stepwise technical details of modern femoral stem cemented fixation.

Recent Findings

Femoral stem cementation provides excellent implant longevity with a low periprosthetic fracture rate among patients with compromised bone quality or aberrant anatomy. Unfamiliarity with the details of modern cementation techniques among trainees who may lack frequent exposure to cementing femoral stems may preclude them from offering this viable option to suitable patients in later stages of their careers. As such, maximizing benefit from cemented femoral stem fixation among suitable candidates is contingent upon the meticulous use of modern cementation techniques.

Summary

In addition to proper patient selection, modern cementation techniques emphasize the use of (1) pulsatile lavage of the femoral canal, (2) utilization of epinephrine-soaked swabs, (3) vacuum cement mixing, (4) retrograde cement introduction, (5) cement pressurization, and (6) the use of stem centralizers. Furthermore, identifying and optimizing the preoperative status of at-risk patients with pre-existing cardiopulmonary compromise, in addition to intraoperative vigilance, are essential for mitigating the risk of developing bone cement implantation syndrome. Further research is required to assess the utility of cemented femoral stem fixation among younger patients.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J bone joint Surg am United States. 2018;100:1455–60.
2.
Huo MH, Parvizi J, Bal BS, Mont MA. What’s new in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surgery-American. 2009;91:2522–34.
3.
Paxton EW, Cafri G, Nemes S, Lorimer M, Kärrholm J, Malchau H, et al. An international comparison of THA patients, implants, techniques, and survivorship in Sweden, Australia, and the United States. Acta Orthop. 2019;90:148–52.PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
5.
Jaffe WL, Hawkins CA. Normalized and proportionalized cemented femoral stem survivorship at 15 years. J Arthroplasty. Churchill Livingstone Inc. 1999;14:708–13.PubMed
6.
Bedard NA, Callaghan JJ, Stefl MD, Liu SS. Systematic review of literature of cemented femoral components: what is the durability at minimum 20 years followup? Clin Orthop Relat Res Springer New York LLC. 2015;473:563–71.PubMed
7.
Ritter MA, Meneghini RM. Twenty-year survivorship of cementless anatomic graduated component total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty Churchill Livingstone. 2010;25:507–13.PubMed
8.
Khanuja HS, Vakil JJ, Goddard MS, Mont MA. Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg. 2011;93:500–9.
9.
•• Tanzer M, Graves SE, Peng A, Shimmin AJ. Is cemented or cementless femoral stem fixation more durable in patients older than 75 years of age? A comparison of the best-performing stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476:1428–37 A well-conducted investigation into the utility of femoral stem cemented fixation among the elderly.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Morshed S, Bozic KJ, Ries MD, Malchau H, Colford JM. Comparison of cemented and uncemented fixation in total hip replacement: a meta-analysis. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:315–26.PubMed
11.
McMinn DJW, Snell KIE, Daniel J, Treacy RBC, Pynsent PB, Riley RD. Mortality and implant revision rates of hip arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis: registry based cohort study. BMJ. BMJ Publishing Group. 2012;345:e3319.
12.
13.
Yang C, Han X, Wang J, Yuan Z, Wang T, Zhao M. Cemented versus uncemented femoral component total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients with primary osteoporosis : retrospective analysis with 5-year follow-up. 2019;
14.
Valle A, Comba F, Zoppi A, Salvati E. Favourable mid-term results of the VerSys CT polished cemented femoral stem for total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2006;30:381–6.
15.
Troelsen A, Malchau E, Sillesen N, Malchau H. A review of current fixation use and registry outcomes in total hip arthroplasty: the uncemented paradox. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2052–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Jones LC, Hungerford DS. Cement disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987:192–206.
17.
18.
Learmonth ID. The evolution of contemporary cementation techniques. Orthopedics SLACK Incorporated. 2005;28:S831–2.
19.
•• Scanelli JA, Reiser GR, Sloboda JF, Moskal JT. Cemented femoral component use in hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019;27:119–27 A relatively recent review that provides an outline of femoral stem types and uses.PubMed
20.
Takenaga RK, Callaghan JJ, Bedard NA, Liu SS, Klaassen AL, Pedersen DR. Cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients fifty years of age or younger: a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Inc. 2012;94:2153–9.
21.
Perticarini L, Zanon G, Rossi SMP, Benazzo FM. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of a trabecular titanium acetabular component in hip arthroplasty: results at minimum 5 years follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:375.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Malahias M-A, Kostretzis L, Greenberg A, Nikolaou VS, Atrey A, Sculco PK. Highly porous titanium acetabular components in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2020.
23.
Harris WH, Maloney WJ. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989:21–9.
24.
Barrack RL, Mulroy RD, Harris WH. Improved cementing techniques and femoral component loosening in young patients with hip arthroplasty. A 12-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:385–9.PubMed
25.
Firestone DE, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Vittetoe DA, et al. Total hip arthroplasty with a cemented, polished, collared femoral stem and a cementless acetabular component. J Bone Jt Surg. 2007;89:126–32.
26.
27.
28.
Abdel MP, Watts CD, Houdek MT, Lewallen DG, Berry DJ. Epidemiology of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in 32 644 primary total hip arthroplasties: a 40-year experience. Bone Joint J England. 2016;98-B:461–7.
29.
• Chammout G, Muren O, Laurencikas E, Bodén H, Kelly-Pettersson P, Sjöö H, et al. More complications with uncemented than cemented femoral stems in total hip replacement for displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial with 69 patients. Acta Orthop. 2017;88:145–51 Provides an outline of complications using cemented vs. cementless femoral stem fixation.PubMed
30.
Lamb JN, King SW, van Duren BH, West RM, Pandit HG. Comparison of cementless versus cemented stem survival: an analysis of 2934 patients with bilateral hip arthroplasties in the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Orthop Proc [Internet]. The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery; 2019;101-B:20. Available from: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1302/​1358-992X.​2019.​6.​020
31.
•• Kristensen TB, Dybvik E, Kristoffersen M, Dale H, Engesaeter LB, Furnes O, et al. Cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture? Data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020;478:90–100 A recent well-conducted large sample study that compares cemented and cementless femoral stem fixation.PubMed
32.
Hailer NP, Garellick G, Karrholm J. Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish hip arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop England. 2010;81:34–41.
33.
34.
Evans JT, Evans JP, Walker RW, Blom AW, Whitehouse MR, Sayers A. How long does a hip replacement last ? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet [Internet]. The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license; 2016;393:647–54. Available from: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0140-6736(18)31665-9
35.
36.
37.
NJR. 14th Annual Report National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Natl. Jt. Regist. 2017.
38.
Vidalain JP. Twenty-year results of the cementless Corail stem. Int Orthop Springer. 2011;35:189–94.
39.
McLaughlin JR, Lee KR. Total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented tapered femoral component in patients younger than 50 years of age: a minimum 20-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. Churchill Livingstone Inc.; 2016;31:1275–8.
40.
Cherian JJ, Jauregui JJ, Banerjee S, Pierce T, Mont MA. What host factors affect aseptic loosening after THA and TKA? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. Springer New York LLC. 2015:2700–9.
41.
Chareancholvanich K, Bourgeault CA, Schmidt AH, Gustilo RB, Lew WD. In vitro stability of cemented and cementless femoral stems with compaction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. United States. 2002;394:290–302.
42.
Kobayashi S, Takaoka K, Saito N, Hisa K. Factors affecting aseptic failure of fixation after primary Charnley total hip arthroplasty. Multivariate survival analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am United States. 1997;79:1618–27.
43.
Wroblewski BM, Siney PD, Fleming PA. Triple taper polished cemented stem in total hip arthroplasty: rationale for the design, surgical technique, and 7 years of clinical experience. J Arthroplasty United States. 2001;16:37–41.
44.
Spitzer AI. The cemented femoral stem: selecting the ideal patient. Orthopedics United States. 2005;28:s841–8.
45.
Donaldson AJ, Thomson HE, Harper NJ, Kenny NW. Bone cement implantation syndrome. Br J Anaesth England. 2009;102:12–22.
46.
Olsen F, Kotyra M, Houltz E, Ricksten S-E. Bone cement implantation syndrome in cemented hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture: incidence, risk factors, and effect on outcome. BJA Br J Anaesth [internet]. 2014;113:800–6. Available from: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​bja/​aeu226, 2014.
47.
Hines CB. Understanding bone cement implantation syndrome. AANA J United States. 2018;86:433–41.
48.
Vaishya R, Chauhan M, Vaish A. Bone cement. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2013/12/15 Elsevier. 2013;4:157–63.
49.
Piuzzi NS, Zanotti G, Comba FM, Buttaro MA, Piccaluga F. Paradoxical cerebral fat embolism in revision hip surgery. Case Rep Orthop. 2014;2014:140757.PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
51.
Maggs J, Wilson M. The relative merits of cemented and uncemented prostheses in total hip arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd. 2017;51:377–85.
52.
Shen G. Femoral stem fixation. An engineering interpretation of the long-term outcome of Charnley and Exeter stems. J bone joint Surg Br England. 1998;80:754–6.
53.
Fowler JL, Gie GA, Lee AJ, Ling RS. Experience with the Exeter total hip replacement since 1970. Orthop Clin North Am United States. 1988;19:477–89.
54.
Kaneuji A, Yamada K, Hirosaki K, Takano M, Matsumoto T. Stem subsidence of polished and rough double-taper stems: in vitro mechanical effects on the cement–bone interface. Acta Orthop [internet] Informa Healthcare. 2009;80:270–6 Available from: https://​pubmed.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​19421909.
55.
Verdonschot N, Huiskes R. Surface roughness of debonded straight-tapered stems in cemented THA reduces subsidence but not cement damage. Biomaterials Netherlands. 1998;19:1773–9.
56.
Kazi HA, Whitehouse SL, Howell JR, Timperley AJ. Not all cemented hips are the same: a register-based (NJR) comparison of taper-slip and composite beam femoral stems. Acta Orthop. 2019;90:214–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Huiskes R, Verdonschot N, Nivbrant B. Migration, stem shape, and surface finish in cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. United States. 1998;355:103–12.
58.
Hutt J, Hazlerigg A, Aneel A, Epie G, Dabis H, Twyman R, et al. The effect of a collar and surface finish on cemented femoral stems: a prospective randomised trial of four stem designs. Int Orthop [internet]. 2014/01/29. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2014;38:1131–7 Available from: https://​pubmed.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​24474088.
59.
Jayasuriya RL, Buckley SC, Hamer AJ, Kerry RM, Stockley I, Tomouk MW, et al. Effect of sliding-taper compared with composite-beam cemented femoral prosthesis loading regime on proximal femoral bone remodeling: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am United States. 2013;95:19–27.
60.
Kedgley AE, Takaki SE, Lang P, Dunning CE. The effect of cross-sectional stem shape on the torsional stability of cemented implant components. J Biomech Eng United States. 2007;129:310–4.
61.
62.
van der Voort P, Pijls BG, Nieuwenhuijse MJ, Jasper J, Fiocco M, Plevier JWM, et al. Early subsidence of shape-closed hip arthroplasty stems is associated with late revision. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 24 RSA studies and 56 survival studies. Acta Orthop [internet]. Informa Healthcare. 2015;86:575–85 Available from: https://​pubmed.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​25909455.
63.
Verdonschot N. Philosophies of stem designs in cemented total hip replacement. Orthopedics. United States. 2005;28:s833–40.
64.
65.
Ong A, Wong KL, Lai M, Garino JP, Steinberg ME. Early failure of precoated femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. United States. 2002;84:786–92.
66.
67.
Makela K, Eskelinen A, Pulkkinen P, Paavolainen P, Remes V. Cemented total hip replacement for primary osteoarthritis in patients aged 55 years or older: results of the 12 most common cemented implants followed for 25 years in the Finnish arthroplasty register. J Bone Joint Surg Br England. 2008;90:1562–9.
68.
Sanchez-Sotelo J, Berry DJ, Harmsen S. Long-term results of use of a collared matte-finished femoral component fixed with second-generation cementing techniques: a fifteen-year-median follow-up study. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Inc.; 2002;84:1636–41.
69.
Collis DK, Mohler CG. Comparison of clinical outcomes in total hip arthroplasty using rough and polished cemented stems with essentially the same geometry. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Inc.; 2002;84:586–92.
70.
Howie DW, Middleton RG, Costi K. Loosening of matt and polished cemented femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:573–6.PubMed
71.
Verdonschot N. Stem design philosophies. Well-Cemented Total Hip Arthroplast Theory Pract. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2005. p. 168–79.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
DiGiovanni CW, Garvin KL, Pellicci PM. Femoral preparation in cemented total hip arthroplasty: reaming or broaching? J Am Acad Orthop Surg United States. 1999;7:349–57.
77.
Kapoor B, Datir SP, Davis B, Wynn-Jones CH, Maffulli N. Femoral cement pressurization in hip arthroplasty: a laboratory comparison of three techniques. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:708–12.PubMed
78.
Korhonen RK, Koistinen A, Konttinen YT, Santavirta SS, Lappalainen R. The effect of geometry and abduction angle on the stresses in cemented UHMWPE acetabular cups—finite element simulations and experimental tests. Biomed Eng Online. 2005;4:1–14.
79.
Daniel J. Berry; Mark W Pagano. Illustrated Tips and Tricks in Hip and Knee Reconstructive and Replacement. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2019.
80.
Bombardieri AM, Sharrock NE, Ma Y, Go G, Drummond JC. An observational study of cerebral blood flow velocity during hypotensive epidural anesthesia. Anesth Analg United States. 2016;122:226–33.
81.
82.
83.
Pitto RP, Koessler M, Kuehle JW. Comparison of fixation of the femoral component without cement and fixation with use of a bone-vacuum cementing technique for the prevention of fat embolism during total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. United States. 1999;81:831–43.
84.
Geiger MH, Keating EM, Ritter MA, Ginther JA, Faris PM, Meding JB. The clinical significance of vacuum mixing bone cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res United States. 2001;382:258–66.
85.
Lidgren L, Bodelind B, Möller J. Bone cement improved by vacuum mixing and chilling 2009;6470.
86.
Gheduzzi S. Femoral cementing techniques: current trends in the UK. 2017;
87.
88.
Sharrock NE, Go G, Harpel PC, Ranawat CS, Sculco TP, Salvati EA. The John Charnley Award. Thrombogenesis during total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. United States. 1995:16–27.
89.
Westrich GH, Salvati EA, Sharrock N, Potter HG, Sánchez PM, Sculco TP. The effect of intraoperative heparin administered during total hip arthroplasty on the incidence of proximal deep vein thrombosis assessed by magnetic resonance venography. J Arthroplast. 2005;20:42–50.
90.
Huo MH, Salvati EA, Sharrock NE, Brien WW, Sculco TP, Pellicci PM, et al. Intraoperative heparin thromboembolic prophylaxis in primary total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. United States; 1992;35–46.
91.
Sharrock MB, ChB NE, Go BSG, Sculco MDTP, Salvati MDEA, Westrich MDGH, et al. Dose response of intravenous heparin on markers of thrombosis during primary total hip replacement. Anesthesiol J Am Soc Anesthesiol. 1999;90:981–7.
92.
Chen CM, Ashjian P, Disa JJ, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL, Mehrara BJ. Is the use of intraoperative heparin safe? Plast Reconstr Surg. United States. 2008;121:49e–53e.
93.
94.
Nassif JM, Ritter MA, Meding JB, Keating EM, Faris PM. The effect of intraoperative intravenous fixed-dose heparin during total joint arthroplasty on the incidence of fatal pulmonary emboli. J Arthroplasty [internet]. Elsevier; 2000;15:16–21. Available from: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0883-5403(00)91025-8, 2000.
95.
Kusserow A, Ficklscherer A, Kreuz PC, Finze S, Mittelmeier W, Jansson V, et al. Importance of a distal centralizer in experimental malpositioning of cemented stems. A biomechanical study on human femora. Arch Med Sci [internet]. 2015/12/11. Termedia Publishing House. 2015;11:1324–9 Available from: https://​pubmed.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​26788098.
96.
97.
Churchill DL, Incavo SJ, Uroskie JA, Beynnon BD. Femoral stem insertion generates high bone cement pressurization. Clin Orthop Relat Res. United States. 2001;393:335–44.
98.
Hunt S, Stone C, Seal S. Timing of femoral prosthesis insertion during cemented arthroplasty: cement curing and static mechanical strength in an in vivo model. Can J Surg. 2011;54:33–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
99.
Shepard MF, Kabo JM, Lieberman JR. The Frank Stinchfield Award. Influence of cement technique on the interface strength of femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. United States. 2000:26–35.
100.
Baleani M, Bialoblocka-Juszczyk E, Engels GE, Viceconti M. The effect of vacuum mixing and pre-heating the femoral component on the mechanical properties of the cement mantle. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser B. 2010;92:454–60.
101.
Hsieh P-H, Tai C-L, Chang Y-H, Lee MS, Shih H-N, Shih C-H. Precooling of the femoral canal enhances shear strength at the cement–prosthesis interface and reduces the polymerization temperature. J Orthop Res United States. 2006;24:1809–14.
102.
Iesaka K, Jaffe WL, Kummer FJ. Effects of preheating of hip prostheses on the stem–cement interface. J Bone Joint Surg Am. United States. 2003;85:421–7.
103.
Jafri AA, Green SM, Partington PF, McCaskie AW, Muller SD. Pre-heating of components in cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser B. 2004;86:1214–9.
104.
105.
Bishop NE, Ferguson S, Tepic S. Porosity reduction in bone cement at the cement–stem interface. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser B. 1996;78:349–56.
106.
Saleh KJ, El Othmani MM, Tzeng TH, Mihalko WM, Chambers MC, Grupp TM. Acrylic bone cement in total joint arthroplasty: a review. J Orthop Res. 2016;34:737–44.PubMed
107.
Katzer A, Ince A, Hahn M, Morlock MM, Steens W. Cement mantle defects in total hip arthroplasty: influence of stem size and cementing technique. J Orthop Traumatol. 2007;8:167–72.PubMedCentral
108.
Digas G, Kärrholm J. The implant–cement Interface in total hip arthroplasty. BT - bone–implant interface in orthopedic surgery: basic science to clinical applications. In: Karachalios T, editor. London: Springer; 2014. p. 35–54. Available from: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-1-4471-5409-9_​4, 2014.
109.
Rajeev A, Mohamed A, Shaikh M, Banaszkiewicz P. Dislodgement of a cemented Exeter femoral stem during closed manipulative reduction of a dislocated total hip replacement. Int J Surg Case Rep [Internet]. 2016/03/18. Elsevier; 2016;22:66–9. Available from: https://​pubmed.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​27060643
110.
Mulhall KJ, Masterson E, Burke TE. Routine recovery room radiographs after total hip arthroplasty: ineffective for screening and unsuitable as baseline for longitudinal follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty. United States. 2004;19:313–7.
111.
112.
Ndu A, Jegede K, Bohl DD, Keggi K, Grauer JN. Recovery room radiographs after total hip arthroplasty: tradition vs utility? J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1051–6.PubMed
113.
114.
•• Cassar-Gheiti AJ, McColgan R, Kelly M, Cassar-Gheiti TM, Kenny P, Murphy CG. Current concepts and outcomes in cemented femoral stem design and cementation techniques: the argument for a new classification system. EFORT open Rev. 2020;5:241–52 Available from: https://​pubmed.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​32377392. Provides an overview of femoral stem designs and cementation.PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Femoral Stem Cementation in Hip Arthroplasty: The Know-How of a “Lost” Art
Authors
Ahmed K. Emara
Mitchell Ng
Viktor E. Krebs
Michael Bloomfield
Robert M. Molloy
Nicolas S. Piuzzi
Publication date
01-02-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Keywords
Hip-TEP
Hip-TEP
Published in
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1935-9748
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09681-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 1/2021 Go to the issue

Non-Operative Management of Anterior Knee Pain (M Fredericson and T Besier, Section Editors)

Non-operative Management of Anterior Knee Pain: Patient Education

Outcomes Research in Orthopedics (O Ayeni, Section Editor)

Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State of Outcome Measures Relating to Shoulder Pathology and Surgery: a Systematic Review

Injuries in Overhead Athletes (J Dines and CL Camp, Section Editors)

The Evidence Behind Weighted Ball Throwing Programs for the Baseball Player: Do They Work and Are They Safe?

Hot Topics

Tibial Torsion and Patellofemoral Pain and Instability in the Adult Population: Current Concept Review

Emerging Trends in Design for Musculoskeletal Medicine (S Goldchmit and M Queiroz, Section Editors)

Patient Education in Orthopedics: the Role of Information Design and User Experience

Emerging Trends in Design for Musculoskeletal Medicine (S Goldchmit and M Queiroz, Section Editors)

Three-Dimensional Printing in Orthopedics: from the Basics to Surgical Applications