ライフサイエンスコーパス: joint replacement

1 phonates for retention of bone density after joint replacement.

2 ly pain and physical function improved after joint replacement.

3 s in bodily pain and physical function after joint replacement.

4 ognized mechanism of failure following total joint replacement.

5 ures and 68 women were admitted for elective joint replacement.

6 es with advanced OA, obtained at the time of joint replacement.

7 sted hazard ratios (aHRs) of incident OA and joint replacement.

8 re used to model the differences in rates of joint replacement.

9 d structural damage are candidates for total joint replacement.

10 sparities persist in the use and outcomes of joint replacement.

11 etes, cataracts, venous thromboembolism, and joint replacement.

12 he outcomes of interest were incident OA and joint replacement.

13 problem for which the main treatment remains joint replacement.

14 >=60 y were enrolled 6-8 wk after unilateral joint replacement.

15 e derived from 124 patients undergoing total joint replacement.

16 oint space width, 3D joint shape, and future joint replacement.

17 on is the most common cause of failure after joint replacement.

18 ily placed on hold because of AEs leading to joint replacement.

19 arthritis (OA) synovium at the time of total joint replacement.

20 rovement, and psychological well-being after joint replacement.

21 ging in patients with failed lower extremity joint replacements.

22 ower extremities, often requiring additional joint replacements.

23 tant role in medicine from contact lenses to joint replacements.

24 ients had more joint safety events and total joint replacements.

25 CABG and (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.67-1.28) for joint replacement].

26 ents with large joint OA who underwent total joint replacement (1,201 of whom had the nodal phenotype

27 Of the women admitted for elective joint replacement, 17 had osteoporosis and 51 did not.

28 diabetes (9.1% vs. 6.4%; P = 0.002) and for joint replacements (2.5% vs. 1.3%; P = 0.006).

29 eas osteoarthritis (4.00, 95% CI 3.32-4.81), joint replacement (6.02, 95% CI 4.66-7.77), osteoporosis

30 ract removal (9.3%), colonoscopy (8.6%), and joint replacement (6.2%).

31 For total joint replacement, a composite quality index was 54% at

32 Among potential candidates for joint replacement, African American patients have signif

33 re was no significant difference for risk of joint replacement (aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.50-1.27; P = .34

34 ances in our understanding of outcomes after joint replacement aid in predicting best candidates for

35 claims data to compare spending for hip and joint replacements among hospitals with voluntary vs man

36 ective, preference-sensitive procedures (eg, joint replacement and back surgery) and nondiscretionary

37 Twenty patients with hip OA awaiting joint replacement and displaying signs of referred pain

38 less likely than whites to be familiar with joint replacement and more likely to expect a longer dur

39 d an approximately 2-fold reduction in total joint replacement and mortality.

40 patients in their "willingness" to consider joint replacement and to determine the factors that infl

41 College of Rheumatology criteria) requiring joint replacement and with moderate-to-severe pain that

42 cOGEN study, 80% of whom had undergone total joint replacement, and 11,009 unrelated controls from th

43 questionnaire also asked about big toe pain, joint replacement, and history of osteoarthritis and rhe

44 he role of patellar resurfacing during total joint replacement, and the use of bisphosphonates for re

45 in which only surgical options such as total joint replacement are available.

46 vice beneficiaries who had a lower extremity joint replacement at a BPCI-participating hospital betwe

47 Lower extremity joint replacement at a BPCI-participating hospital.

48 In addition, the volume of total joint replacements at this center increased during the d

49 cyclooxygenase-II inhibitors, infected total joint replacements, back pain, and Lyme disease.

50 In the context of joint replacement bundled payments, these data suggest t

51 t Questionnaire score, and presence of total joint replacement, but not by diabetes, smoking, exercis

52 y drugs to alleviate symptoms or degenerated joint replacement by a prosthetic implant at the end sta

53 payment reform that addresses inequities in joint replacement care.

54 ntial to exacerbate disparities in access to joint replacement care.

55 cation procedure coding was used to identify joint replacement cases.

56 unities in Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) Model are representative of othe

57 The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model is Medicare's mandatory bu

58 The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was designed to reduce the

59 tals under Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, a bundled payment plan fo

60 The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, a traditional Medicare bu

61 Under the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, hospitals are held accoun

62 Medicare's Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model, initiated in 2016, is a n

63 Medicare implemented Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR), a national mandatory bundled-pa

64 e, lower extremity fracture, lower extremity joint replacement, debility, neurologic disorders, and b

65 Between 1990 and 2005, hip or knee joint replacement due to OA was performed in 60 subjects

66 endent predictor of the risk of hip and knee joint replacement due to severe OA.

67 ere Medicare beneficiaries and who underwent joint replacement during the period from 2011 through 20

68 vanced symptoms and structural damage, total joint replacement effectively relieves pain.

69 ater decreases in institutional spending per joint-replacement episode in treatment areas than in con

70 There were 29441 lower extremity joint replacement episodes in the baseline period and 31

71 e payments declined more for lower extremity joint replacement episodes provided in BPCI-participatin

72 The previously validated Joint Replacement Expectations Survey was used to assess

73 septic loosening, the most common reason for joint replacement failure.

74 cartilage was obtained from femoral heads at joint replacement for OA or following fracture to the fe

75 d tibial plateau of patients undergoing knee joint replacement for OA.

76 articular cartilage from patients undergoing joint replacement for osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid ar

77 (TEM) in the BM of patients undergoing total joint replacement for osteoarthritis.

78 otential of developing alternatives to total joint replacement for treating osteoarthritis.

79 l tissues obtained from 16 donors undergoing joint replacement for treatment of osteoarthritis.

80 Total joint replacements for end-stage osteoarthritis of the h

81 he risk of developing SA (excluding infected joint replacements) for individuals with RA was calculat

82 Medicare patients undergoing lower extremity joint replacement from 2013-2017, the BPCI model 3 was s

83 Postoperative mortality after hip joint replacement has fallen substantially.

84 Wear debris in joint replacements has been suggested as a cause of asso

85 ovement projects included total hip and knee joint replacement, hospitalist laboratory utilization, a

86 We identified 23251 joint replacements (ie, episodes of care).

87 atients to express "willingness" to consider joint replacement if the procedure was needed and recomm

88 gly popular due to the need for robust total joint replacement implants that have a high success rate

89 ration combined with the limited lifespan of joint-replacement implants indicate the need for alterna

90 c Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective joint replacement in 65 treatment (selected for CJR part

91 % CIs) were calculated for the risk of total joint replacement in association with age, sex, body mas

92 r all patients who underwent lower-extremity joint replacement in California between January 1, 2014,

93 e consisted of patients with a primary total joint replacement in Denmark and the United Kingdom (n =

94 ed with lower risk of osteoarthritis-related joint replacement in humans.

95 tly higher ORs for an association with total joint replacement in nodal OA cases than in non-nodal OA

96 ent community studies confirm the benefit of joint replacement in OA, though a number of questions re

97 ged 18 years and older with at least 1 large joint replacement in situ (103 case participants) and ag

98 the anticipated increased incidence of total joint replacement in the next decade, implant failure wi

99 compared with thematic content from patient joint replacement information materials.

100 Joint replacement is an effective treatment for symptoma

101 not responded adequately to core treatments, joint replacement is an option to consider.

102 tly, treatment options remain inadequate and joint replacement is often inevitable.

103 phylaxis to prevent late infections in total joint replacement is to narrow the targeted hosts to tho

104 bundled payment program for lower-extremity joint replacement, is associated with care for patients

105 duce social inequalities in the provision of joint replacement, it is unclear whether these gaps have

106 Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) score, consultation time, TK

107 ogram, bundled paymtents for lower-extremity joint replacement (LEJR) are associated with 2% to 4% co

108 t (CABG), lung resection, or lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) were identified in the 2016-201

109 sode-based payment model for lower-extremity joint replacement (LEJR).

110 nses and further suggest that wear debris in joint replacements may have Th2-type inflammatory proper

111 y-four patients suspected of having infected joint replacement (n = 12), diabetic pedal osteomyelitis

112 is that resulted in a physician's visit or a joint replacement not associated with a hip fracture was

113 an arthritis-related physician's visit or a joint replacement not associated with a hip fracture.

114 ss "willing" than white patients to consider joint replacement (odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence inter

115 in 1,247 patients who had undergone elective joint replacement of the hip or the knee due to end-stag

116 P) analysis, 1825 were included in the major joint replacement of the lower extremity (MJRLE) analysi

117 e treatment of arthritis relates to surgical joint replacements of the hips/knees.

118 logy criteria for OA and had undergone total joint replacement or arthroscopy.

119 ts with compatible exposures or a history of joint replacement or immunosuppression.

120 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92-1.28] or joint replacement (OR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.58-1.12).

121 s for CABG (OR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.14) or joint replacement (OR = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.23).

122 CABG and (OR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.22-4.26) for joint replacement] or serious complication rates [(OR =

123 omen with osteoporosis admitted for elective joint replacement (P = .01) (medians, 32.4, 49.9, and 55

124 n without osteoporosis admitted for elective joint replacement (P = .02) and than women with osteopor

125 spital status, number of beds, percentage of joint replacements performed on African American patient

126 The number of joint replacement procedures performed is growing faster

127 a repair), or high risk (eg, major cancer or joint replacement procedures).

128 of surgeries evaluated, including orthopedic joint replacement procedures.

129 mplications (P=0.67) or on the percentage of joint-replacement procedures performed in high-risk pati

130 The success of the Joint Replacement Program demonstrates that VA-TAMMCS is

131 Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement program implementation.

132 The Joint Replacement Program system redesign project was in

133 Despite the good clinical outcomes of total joint replacements, prosthetic joint infections still re

134 National joint replacement registries from Australia and Finland

135 series was 77.6% (95% CI 76.0-79.2) and from joint replacement registries was 57.9% (95% CI 57.1-58.7

136 We also reviewed reports of national joint replacement registries, and extracted data for a s

137 d on data for revision surgery from national joint-replacement registries and on patient-reported out

138 We also reviewed national joint replacement registry reports and extracted the dat

139 were found to reflect data from the American Joint Replacement Registry.

140 ng what we believe to be the world's largest joint replacement registry.

141 95% CI, 0.65-0.90; P < .001) and the risk of joint replacement remained not statistically significant

142 Joint replacement research has explored minimally invasi

143 from 110 different individuals who underwent joint replacement revealed that the genotype of rs288757

144 dal osteoarthritis, knee pain, big toe pain, joint replacement, self-reported osteoarthritis, and sel

145 With the increase in numbers of joint replacements, spinal surgeries, and dental implant

146 In a joint replacement study, serum D-COMP (p = 0.017), but n

147 ies were still 14% more likely to have total joint replacement surgeries (OR 1.14 [95% CI 1.13-1.16])

148 (PJI) are a serious adverse event following joint replacement surgeries; antibiotics are usually add

149 tilage samples across 38 patients undergoing joint replacement surgery (discovery cohort: 12 knee OA,

150 clusion criteria were patients who underwent joint replacement surgery after femoral neck fracture du

151 iden mutation who are undergoing hip or knee joint replacement surgery and are receiving effective an

152 222) with osteoarthritis undergoing primary joint replacement surgery at a university hospital betwe

153 they age, in several instances necessitating joint replacement surgery by the third decade of life.

154 Joint replacement surgery continues to grow in sheer num

155 Joint replacement surgery due to severe hip or knee OA w

156 e obtained from femoral heads at the time of joint replacement surgery for OA or femoral neck fractur

157 the United States for thromboprophylaxis in joint replacement surgery in spite of being associated w

158 sion analysis, the adjusted relative risk of joint replacement surgery in the highest versus the lowe

159 sive surgical site infection (SSI) following joint replacement surgery is an important criterion used

160 There is growing evidence that access to joint replacement surgery is being restricted based on b

161 al differences in patients' expectations for joint replacement surgery outcomes.

162 evention of SSIs, but their effectiveness in joint replacement surgery remains unclear.

163 resource planning for surgical services and joint replacement surgery waiting lists and improve pati

164 rom tissue removed at the time of OA-related joint replacement surgery were also immunostained for ni

165 steoarthritis [OA] patients undergoing total joint replacement surgery) were stimulated with cytokine

166 tissue was obtained from RA patients during joint replacement surgery, and histologic changes in the

167 ts obtained from patients with RA undergoing joint replacement surgery, or human dermal fibroblasts,

168 invasive and computer-guided or robot-guided joint replacement surgery, the best operative choice for

169 age tissue isolated from patients undergoing joint replacement surgery, yet their role in disease pat

170 m the menisci of 3 adults who underwent knee joint replacement surgery.

171 inforce the improved pain and function after joint replacement surgery.

172 ays after surgery in 120 patients undergoing joint replacement surgery.

173 and 1999, including hospital admissions and joint replacement surgery.

174 bank, and from OA patients undergoing total joint replacement surgery.

175 infections are a devastating complication of joint replacement surgery.

176 0 baseline visit and tested as predictors of joint replacement surgery.

177 highly significant predictor of the risk of joint replacement surgery.

178 S2 with mRNA extracted from the cartilage of joint-replacement surgery OA patients revealed a signifi

179 e cartilage of OA patients who had undergone joint-replacement surgery.

180 which will ultimately reduce the demand for joint-replacement surgery.

181 In April 2009, an analysis of joint replacement surgical procedures at the Richard L.

182 Exclusion criteria were history of major joint replacement, terminal illness, inflammatory arthri

183 for prophylaxis in patients with prosthetic joint replacements; the American Dental Society states "

184 for prophylaxis in patients with prosthetic joint replacements; the American Dental Society states t

185 hey were less likely than whites to perceive joint replacement therapy as efficacious (odds ratio 0.5

186 Joint replacement therapy is an effective treatment opti

187 countries and, at present, short of surgical joint replacement, there is no therapy available that ca

188 ho were undergoing primary or revision total joint replacement (TJR) surgery.

189 Total joint replacement (TJR) was selected as a marker of end-

190 least 1 opioid prescription following total joint replacements (TJRs).

191 5.8%-5.9%) for patients with lower extremity joint replacement to 18.8% (95% CI, 18.8%-18.9%).

192 we show an 18% improvement in prediction of joint replacement using 3D metrics combined with radiogr

193 l patients who underwent cardiac, orthopedic joint replacement, vascular, colorectal, and hysterectom

194 differences between individuals destined for joint replacement versus controls at regions of the join

195 and knee replacements while increasing total joint replacement volume at this medical center.

196 ategories risk score, rural hospital status, joint replacement volume, percentage of Medicaid dischar

197 Life-table analyses showed that joint replacement was performed at a mean age of 55 year

198 The incidence of total joint replacements was 8 (3.5%), 16 (6.9%), and 4 (1.7%)

199 ORs for total joint replacement were compared between cases of nodal O

200 e, burn, head trauma, spinal cord injury, or joint replacement were excluded from this study.

201 diagnosis of OA, inflammatory arthritis, or joint replacement were excluded.

202 In total 809 patients with joint replacement were included (mean age 65.0 years, 62

203 tive processes for patients undergoing total joint replacement were redesigned following the VA-TAMMC

204 Total joint replacements were reported in 8 patients: 1 in the

205 have compared cells from patients undergoing joint replacement with cells from normal donors.