1) Maloney WJ, et al : The cemented femoral component. In : Callaghan JJ, et a (l eds). The adult hip. Philadelphia : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins ; 917-939, 2007.
2) Stauffer RN : Ten-year follow-up study of total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 64 : 983-990, 1982.
3) Sutherland CJ, et al : A ten-year follow-up of one hundred consecutive Muller curved-stem total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 64 : 970-982, 1982.
4) Dorr LD, et al : Long-term results of cemented total hip arthroplasty in patients 45 years old or younger. A 16-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty, 9 : 453-456, 1994.
5) Callaghan JJ, et al : Results of Charnley total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of thirty years. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 86 : 690-695, 2004.
6) Berry DJ, et al : Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements : factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 84 : 171-177, 2002.
7) Wroblewski BM, et al : Charnley low-frictional torque arthroplasty of the hip. 20-to-30 year results. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 81 : 427-430, 1999.
8) Makela, KT, et al : Countrywise results of total hip replacement. Acta Orthopaedica, 2014 ; 85 : 107-116.
9) G ruen TA, et al : "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components : A radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop, 141 : 17-27, 1979.
10) Harris WH, et al : Loosening of the femoral component after use of the medullary-plug cementing technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 68 : 1064-1066, 1986.
11) Karrholm J, et al : Does early micromotion of femoral stem prostheses matter? 4-7-year stereoradiographic follow-up of 84 cemented prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 76 : 912-917, 1994.
12) Ryd L : Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis of prosthetic fixation in the hip and knee joint. Clin Orthop, 276 : 56-65, 1992.
13) Majkowski RS, et al : Bone surface preparation in cemented joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 75 : 459-463, 1993.
14) Bannister GC, et al : Control of bleeding in cemented arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 72 : 444-446, 1990.
15) Majkowski RS, et al : The effect of bleeding on the cement-bone interface. An experimental study. Clin Orthop, 299 : 293-297, 1994.
16) Burke DW, et al : Centrifugation as a method of improving tensile and fatigue properties of acrylic bone cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 66 : 1265-1273, 1984.
17) Davies JP, et al : The effect of centrifuging bone cement. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 71 : 39-42, 1989.
18) Janssen D, et al : The contradictory effects of pores on fatigue cracking of bone cement. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater, 74 : 747-753, 2005.
19) Vila MM, et al : Effect of porosity and environment on the mechanical behavior of acrylic bone cement modified with acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene particles : I. Fracture toughness. J Biomed Mater Res, 48 : 121-127, 1999.
20) Espehaug B, et al : The type of cement and failure of total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 84 : 832-838, 2002.
21) Noble PC, et al : Pressurization and centralization enhance the quality and reproducibility of cement mantles. Clin Orthop, 355 : 77-89, 1998.
22) Churchill DL, et al : Femoral stem insertion generates high bone cement pressurization. Clin Orthop, 393 : 335-344, 2001.
23) Dayton MR, et al : Effects of early and late stage cement intrusion into cancellous bone. Clin Orthop, 405 : 39-45, 2002.
24) Oates KM, et al : In vivo effect of pressurization of polymethyl methacrylate bone-cement. Biomechanical and histologic analysis. J Arthroplasty, 10 : 373-381, 1995.
25) Li C, et al : Effects of pre-cooling and pre-heating procedures on cement polymerization and thermal osteonecrosis in cemented hip replacements. Med Eng Phys, 25 : 559-564, 2003.
26) Star MJ, et al : Suboptimal (thin) distal cement mantle thickness as a contributory factor in total hip arthroplasty femoral component failure. A retrospective radiographic analysis favoring distal stem centralization. J Arthroplasty, 9 : 143-149, 1994.
27) Hanson PB, et al : Total hip arthroplasty cemented femoral component distal stem centralizer. Effect on stem centralization and cement mantle. J Arthroplasty, 10 : 683-688, 1995.
28) Goldberg, et al : A fourth generation cemented femoral prosthesis. Clinical and radiographic results. Orthop Trans, 19 : 546, 1995.
29) Ebramzadeh E, et al : The cement mantle in total hip arthroplasty. Analysis of long-term radiographic results. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 76 : 77-87, 1994.
30) Fisher DA, et al : Cement-mantle thickness affects cement strains in total hip replacement. J Biomechanics, 30 : 1173-1177, 1997.
31) Harrigan TP, et al : A finite element study of the initiation of failure of fixation in cemented femoral total hip components. J Orthop Res, 10 : 134-144, 1992.
32) Jasty M, et al : The initiation of failure in cemented femoral components of hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 73 : 551-558, 1991.
33) Estok DM 2nd, et al : Factors affecting cement strains near the tip of a cemented femoral component. J Arthroplasty, 12 : 40-48, 1997.
34) Breusch SJ, et al : Dependency of cement mantle thickness on femoral stem design and centralizer. J Arthroplasty, 16 : 648-657, 2001.
35) Ito H, et al : Tight fit technique in primary hybrid total hip arthroplasty for patients with hip dysplasia. J Arthroplasty, 22 : 57-64, 2007.
36) Goldberg BA, et al : Proximal and distal femoral centralizers in modern cemented hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop, 349 : 163-173, 1998.
37) Kawate K, et al : Four-angle radiographic assessment of cement mantle thickness in cemented total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 18 : 914-919, 2003.
38) Valdivia GG, et al : The John Charnley Award : Three-dimensional analysis of the cement mantle in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop, 393 : 38-51, 2001.
39) Ranawat CS, et al : Prediction of the long-term durability of all-polyethylene cemented sockets. Clin Orthop, 317 : 89-105, 1995.
40) Madey SM, et al : Charnley total hip arthroplasty with use of improved techniques of cementing. The results after a minimum of fifteen years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 79 : 53-64, 1997.
41) Sanchez-Sotelo J, et al : 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 Joint Surg Am, 84 : 1636-1641, 2002.
42) Oishi CS, et al : The femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. Six to eight-year follow-up of one hundred consecutive patients after use of a third-generation cementing technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 76 : 1130-1136, 1994.
43) Clohisy JC, et al : Primary hybrid total hip replacement, performed with insertion of the acetabular component without cement and a precoat femoral component with cement. An average ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 81 : 247-255, 1999.
44) Rasquinha VJ, et al : Fifteen-year survivorship of a collarless, cemented, normalized femoral stem in primary hybrid total hip arthroplasty with a modified third-generation cement technique. J Arthroplasty, 18 (7 Suppl 1) : 86-94, 2003.
45) Harris WH : Is it advantageous to strengthen the cement-metal interface and use a collar for cemented femoral components of total hip replacements? Clin Orthop, 285 : 67-72, 1992.
46) Markolf KL, et al : The effect of calcar contact on femoral component micromovement. A mechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 62 : 1315-1323, 1980.
47) Schmalzried TP, et al : Hybrid total hip replacement. A 6.5-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 75 : 608-615, 1993.
48) Richards R, et al : The collar-calcar contact controversy. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 68 : 851, 1986.
49) Ling RS : The use of a collar and precoating on cemented femoral stems is unnecessary and detrimental. Clin Orthop, 285 : 73-83, 1992.
50) Kelley SS, et al : A prospective randomized study of a collar versus a collarless femoral prosthesis. Clin Orthop, 294 : 114-122, 1993.
51) Settecerri JJ, et al : Collar versus collarless cemented HD-II femoral prostheses. Clin Orthop, 398 : 146-152, 2002.
52) Meding JB, et al : A comparison of collared and collarless femoral components in primary cemented total hip arthroplasty : a randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty, 14 : 123-130, 1999.
53) Maloney WJ, et al : Biomechanical and histologic investigation of cemented total hip arthroplasties. A study of autopsy-retrieved femurs after in vivo cycling. Clin Orthop, 249 : 129-140, 1989.
54) Lu Z, et al : Stable partial debonding of the cement interfaces indicated by a finite element model of a total hip prosthesis. J Orthop Res, 14 : 238-244, 1996.
55) Davies JP, et al : Strength of cement-metal interfaces in fatigue : comparison of smooth, porous and precoated specimens. Clin Mater, 12 : 121-126, 1993.
56) Ebramzadeh E, et al : Initial stability of cemented femoral stems as a function of surface finish, collar, and stem size. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 86 : 106-115, 2004.
57) Gardiner RC, et al : Failure of the cement-bone interface. A consequence of strengthening the cement-prosthesis interface? J Bone Joint Surg Br, 76 : 49-52, 1994
58) Barrack RL, et al : Improved cementing techniques and femoral component loosening in young patients with hip arthroplasty. A 12-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 74 : 385-389, 1992.
59) Jaffe WL, et al : Normalized and proportionalized cemented femoral stem survivorship at 15 years. J Arthroplasty, 14 : 708-713, 1999.
60) Rasquinha VJ, et al : A prospective, randomized, double-blind study of smooth versus rough stems using cement fixation : minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty, 19 (7 Suppl 2) : 2-9, 2004.
61) Callaghan JJ, et al : The John Charnley Award. Practice surveillance : a practical method to assess outcome and to perform clinical research. Clin Orthop, 369 : 25-38, 1999.
62) Della Valle AG, et al : A rough surface finish adversely affects the survivorship of a cemented femoral stem. Clin Orthop, 436 : 158-163, 2005.
63) Ong A, et al : Early failure of precoated femoral components in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 84 : 786-792, 2002.
64) Collis DK, et al : Comparison of clinical outcomes in total hip arthroplasty using rough and polished cemented stems with essentially the same geometry. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 84 : 586-592, 2002.
65) Vail TP, et al : A prospective randomized trial of cemented femoral components with polished versus grit-blasted surface finish and identical stem geometry. J Arthroplasty, 18 (7 Suppl 1) : 95-102, 2003.
66) Mohler CG, et al : Early loosening of the femoral component at the cement-prosthesis interface after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 77 : 1315-1322, 1995.
67) Ito H, et al : Pre-coated femoral components in hybrid total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 87 : 306-309, 2005.
68) Scheerlinck T, et al : The design features of cemented femoral hip implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 88 : 1409-1418, 2006.