Lower Limb Direct Skeletal Attachment. A Yucatan Micropig Pilot Study

REFERENCES

• Ahmed A, Bayol MG, Ha SB. Adventitious bursae in below knee amputees. Case reports and a review of the literature. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1994;73(2):124–129.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bennett L. Transferring load to flesh. Bull Prosthet Res. 1974; (Fall)10–22:133–143.
   Google Scholar
• Conde-Salazar L, Llinas Volpe MG, Guinaraens D, Allergic contact dermatitis from a suction socket prosthesis. Contact Dermatitis 1988;19(4):305–306.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Foort J. Socket design for the above-knee amputee. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1979;3(2):73–81.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoaglund FT, Jergesen HE, Wilson L, Evaluation of problems and needs of veteran lower-limb amputees in the San Francisco Bay area during the period 1977–1980. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1983;20(1):57–71.
   Google Scholar
• Redhead RG. Total surface bearing self suspending above-knee sockets. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1979;3(3):126–136.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beer FP, Johnston ER. Vector Mechanics for Engineers, 5th ed. McGraw Hill, New York; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Fernie GR, Holliday PJ. Volume fluctuations in the residual limbs of lower limb amputees. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1982;63(4):162–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy SW. Skin problems of the leg amputee. Prosthet Orthot Int. 1980;4(1):73–44.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett L. Transferring load to flesh. Part VIII. Stasis and stress. Bull Prosthet Res. 1975; (Fall)10–23:202–210.
   Google Scholar
• Krouskop TA, Trono R, Adamski AJ. The effects of pylon shape on bone-pylon interface performance in direct skeletal attachment. J Biomed Mater Res. 1976;10(3):345–369.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hall CW. Developing a permanently attached artificial limb. Bull Prosthet Res. 1974; (Fall)10–22:144–157.
   Google Scholar
• Hall CW, Adams LM, Ghidoni JJ. Development of skin interfacing cannula. Trans Am Soc Artif Int Org. 1975;21: 281–288.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hall CW, Cow PA, Mallow WA. Skeletal extension development: criteria for future designs. Bull Prosthet Res. 1976; (Spring)10–25:69–96.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fernie GR, Kostuik JP, Lobb RJ. A percutaneous implant using a porous metal surface coating for adhesion to bone and a velour covering for soft tissue attachment: results of trials in pigs. J Biomed Mater Res. 1977;11(6):883–891.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pilliar RM, Lee JM, Maniatopoulos C. Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;208:108–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mooney V, Schwartz SA, Roth AM, Percutaenous implant devices. Ann Biomed Eng. 1977;5(1):34–46.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parel SM, Branemark PI, Tjellstrom A, Osseointegration in maxillofacial prosthetics. Part I: Intraoral applications. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;55(4):490–494.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parel SM, Branemark PI, Tjellstrom A, Osseointegration in maxillofacial prosthetics. Part II: extraoral applications. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;55(5):600–606.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parel SM, Holt GR, Branemark PI, Osseointegration and facial prosthetics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1(1):27–29.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swindle MM, Smith AC, Hepburn BJ. Swine as models in experimental surgery. J Invest Surg. 1988;1(1):65–79.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plenk H. Cell and Bone Matrix Interactions at the Implant Interface. Third Annual Indiana Conference, Indianapolis, IN; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Becker RO, Spadaro JA. Treatment of orthopaedic infections with electrically generated silver ions. A preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(7):871–881.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berger TJ, Spadaro JA, Chapin SE, Electrically generated silver ions: quantitative effects on bacterial and mammalian cells. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1976;9(2):357–358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ersek RA, Navarro JA. Maximizing wound healing with silver-impregnated porcine xenograft. Todays OR Nurse 1990;12(12):4–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weinans H, Huiskes R, van Rietbergen B, Adaptive bone remodeling around bonded noncemented total hip arthroplasty: a comparison between animal experiments and computer simulation. J Orthop Res. 1993;11(4):500–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huiskes R. Stress shielding and bone resorption in THA: clinical versus computer-simulation studies. Acta Orthop Belg. 1993;59(S1):118–129.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huiskes R, Nunamaker D. Local stresses and bone adaptation around orthopedic implants. Calcif Tissue Int. 1984;36(S1):110–117.
   Google Scholar
• Weinans H, Huiskes R, Grootenboer HJ. Effects of material properties of femoral hip components on bone remodeling. J Orthop Res. 1992;10:845–853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrigan TP, Hamilton JJ. Bone remodeling and structural optimization. J Biomech. 1994;27(3):323–328.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huiskes R, Weinans H, Dalstra M. Adaptive bone remodeling and biomechanical design considerations for noncemented total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 1989;12(9): 1255–1267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huiskes R, Weinans H, Grootenboer HJ, Adaptive bone-remodeling theory applied to prosthetic-design analysis. J Biomech. 1987;20(11/12):1135–1150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinans H, Huiskes R, Grootenboer HJ. The behavior of adaptive bone-remodeling simulation models. J Biomech. 1992;25(12):1425–1441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinans H, Huiskes R, Grootenboer HJ. Effects of fit and bonding characteristics of femoral stems on adaptive bone remodeling. J Biomech Eng. 1994;116(4):393–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter DR. Mechanical loading history and skeletal biology. J Biomech. 1987;20:1095–1110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter DR, Fyhrie DP, Whalen RT. Trabecular bone density and loading history: regulation of connective tissue biology by mechanical energy. J Biomech. 1987;20:785–794.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kloth LC, McCulloch JM. Promotion of wound healing with electrical stimulation {Review}. Adv Wound Care. 1996;9(5):42–45.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gonzalez JB, Purdon MA, Horowitz SM. In vitro studies on the role of titanium in aseptic loosening. Clin Orthop. 1996 Sep; 330:244–250.
   Google Scholar
• Howie DW, Haynes DR, Rogers SD, The response to particulate debris. Orthop Clin North Am. 1993;24(4): 571–581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim KJ, Chiba J, Rubash HE. In vivo and in vitro analysis of membranes from hip prostheses inserted without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76(2):172–180.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Lenthe GH, de Waal Malefijt MC, Huiskes R. Stress shielding after total knee replacement may cause bone resorption in the distal femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(1):117–122.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Harrigan TP, Kareh J, Harris WH. The influence of support conditions in the loading fixture on failure mechanisms in the push-out test: a finite element study. J Orthop Res. 1990;8(5):678–684.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grosse-Sestrup C, Affeld K. Design criteria for percutaneous devices. J Biomed Mater Res. 1984;18(4): 357–382.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar