Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar;9(5):388. doi: 10.21037/atm-20-3969

Table 4. The top 50 high-cited references of the publications on knee revision.

Rank Cited times Year First author Title
1 81 2007 Kurtz Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030
2 51 2010 Bozic The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States
3 33 2010 Hossain Midterm assessment of causes and results of revision total knee arthroplasty
4 33 2007 Engh Use of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty in knees with severe tibial bone loss
5 32 2008 Meneghini Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement
6 31 2012 Lachiewicz Can tantalum cones provide fixation in complex revision knee arthroplasty?
7 31 2005 Kurtz Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002
8 30 2006 Radnay Management of bone loss: augments, cones, offset stems
9 29 2011 Howard Early results of the use of tantalum femoral cones for revision total knee arthroplasty
10 29 2001 Clatworthy The use of structural allograft for uncontained defects in revision total knee arthroplasty A minimum five-year review
11 27 2011 Mortazavi Failure following revision total knee arthroplasty: infection is the major cause
12 26 2006 Backstein Management of bone loss: structural grafts in revision total knee arthroplasty
13 25 2009 Wood Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties
14 25 2009 Long Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up
15 25 2009 Bauman Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty
16 24 2008 Suarez Why do revision knee arthroplasties fail?
17 24 1995 Haas Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of modular components with stems inserted without cement
18 22 2013 Alexander Cementless metaphyseal sleeves used for large tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty
19 21 2003 Whaley Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty
20 20 2015 Kamath Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up
21 20 2006 Lotke Impaction grafting for bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty
22 19 2010 Pearse Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry
23 19 2003 Fehring Stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparative analysis
24 18 2013 Schmitz Three-year follow up utilizing tantal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty
25 18 2011 Beckmann Fixation of revision TKA: a review of the literature
26 18 2007 Saldanha Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty - results of a multicentre study
27 17 2013 Villanueva-Martinez Tantalum cones in revision total knee arthroplasty A promising short-term result with 29 cones in 21 patients
28 17 2013 Rao Tantalum cones for major osteolysis in revision knee replacement
29 17 2013 Agarwal Metal metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee replacement
30 17 2009 Kim Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of a constrained condylar knee prosthesis
31 17 2009 Jamsen Risk factors for infection after knee arthroplasty A register-based analysis of 43,149 cases
32 16 2014 Barnett Use of stepped porous titanium metaphyseal sleeves for tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term results
33 16 2009 Kurtz Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030
34 16 2007 Mabry The role of stems and augments for bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty
35 15 2015 Graichen Direct, Cementless, Metaphyseal Fixation in Knee Revision Arthroplasty With Sleeves-Short-Term Results
36 15 2014 Derome Treatment of large bone defects with trabecular metal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term clinical and radiographic outcomes
37 15 2010 Mortazavi Revision total knee arthroplasty infection: incidence and predictors
38 15 2007 Pour Rotating hinged total knee replacement: use with caution
39 15 2006 Sheng Revision total knee arthroplasty: 1990 through 2002 A review of the Finnish arthroplasty registry
40 15 2005 Hockman Augments and allografts in revision total knee arthroplasty: usage and outcome using one modular revision prosthesis
41 15 2002 Sharkey Insall Award paper Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today?
42 15 1999 Engh Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction
43 15 1997 Peters Revision total knee arthroplasty with a cemented posterior-stabilized or constrained condylar prosthesis: a minimum 3-year and average 5-year follow-up study
44 14 2011 Haidukewych Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications and techniques
45 14 2010 Park Comparison of static and mobile antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers for the treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty
46 14 2009 Meneghini Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement Surgical technique
47 14 2007 Mabry Revision total knee arthroplasty with modular cemented stems: long-term follow-up
48 14 2007 Johnson The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements
49 14 1997 Engh Treatment of major defects of bone with bulk allografts and stemmed components during total knee arthroplasty
50 13 2013 Schroer Why are total knees failing today? Etiology of total knee revision in 2010 and 2011