Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patients Report Improvement in Quality of Life and Satisfaction After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

  • Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Hip Society
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Abstract

Background

A number of reconstructive procedures are available for the management of hip osteoarthritis. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is now an accepted procedure, with implant survivorship comparable to THA at up to 10 years’ followup in certain series. Most reports focus on implant survivorship, surgeon-derived results, or complications. Fewer data pertain to patient-reported results, including validated measures of quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction and baseline measures from which to determine magnitude of improvement. Validated patient-reported results are essential to guide patients and surgeons in the current era of informed and shared decision making.

Questions/purposes

We determined whether patients reported improvement in disease-specific, joint-specific, and generic QoL after hip resurfacing arthroplasty; whether patients were satisfied with the results of the procedure; and latest activity level and return to sport.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 127 patients (100 men, 27 women) who underwent 143 hip resurfacing procedures between 2002 and 2006. Mean patient age was 52 years. Patients completed the WOMAC, Oxford Hip Score, and SF-12 at baseline and again at minimum 2-year followup (mean, 2.5 years; range, 2–6 years). At latest followup, patients completed a validated satisfaction questionnaire and UCLA activity score.

Results

All QoL scores improved (normalized to a 0–100 scale, where 100 = best health state). WOMAC improved from 46 to 95, Oxford Hip Score from 42 to 95, SF-12 (physical) from 34 to 54, and SF-12 (mental) from 46 to 56. Patient satisfaction score was 96. UCLA activity score was 8.

Conclusions

The majority of patients reported improvement in QoL, were very satisfied with their outcome, and returned to a high level of activity after hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amstutz HC. Present state of metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2008;17:12–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Amstutz HC, Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA. Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:28–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Amstutz HC, Grigoris P. Metal on metal bearings in hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329(suppl):S11–S34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Amstutz HC, Grigoris P, Dorey FJ. Evolution and future of surface replacement of the hip. J Orthop Sci. 1998;3:169–186.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Gruen TA, Wisk LE. Clinical and radiographic results of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing with a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:2663–2671.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Amstutz HC, Takamura KM, Le Duff MJ. The effect of patient selection and surgical technique on the results of Conserve Plus Hip Resurfacing—3.5 to 14 year follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am. 2011;42:133–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip: a comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:228–241.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Back DL, Dalziel R, Young D, Shimmin A. Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings: an independent prospective study of the first 230 hips. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:324–329.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Baker RP, Pollard TC, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. A medium-term comparison of hybrid hip replacement and Birmingham hip resurfacing in active young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:158–163.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, LeDuff M, Gruen T, Amstutz HC. Risk factors affecting outcome of metal-on-metal surface arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;418:87–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bellamy N, Buchman WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to anti-rheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and the knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bozic KJ, Browne J, Dangles CJ, Manner PA, Yates AJ Jr, Weber KL, Boyer KM, Zemaitis P, Woznica A, Turkelson CM, Wies JL. Modern metal-on-metal implants. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20:402–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bozic KJ, Chiu V, Slover JD, Immerman I, Kahn JG. Patient preferences and willingness to pay for arthroplasty surgery in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:503–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA, Riley LH Jr. Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement: incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973;55:1629–1632.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Burroughs BR, Hallstrom B, Golladay GJ, Hoeffel D, Harris WH. Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:11–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Costa ML, Achten J, Parsons NR, Edlin RP, Foguet P, Prakash U, Griffin DR; Young Adult Hip Arthroplasty Team. Total hip arthroplasty versus resurfacing arthroplasty in the treatment of patients with arthritis of the hip joint: single centre, parallel group, assessor blinded, randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;344:e2147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Coulter G, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Shimmin AJ. Birmingham hip resurfacing at a mean of ten years: results from an independent centre. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:315–321.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJ. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:177–184.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Davies AP, Willert HG, Campbell PA, Learmonth ID, Case CP. An unusual lymphocytic perivascular infiltration in tissues around contemporary metal-on-metal joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:18–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr AJ, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:185–190.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. De Haan R, Pattyn C, Gill HS, Murray DW, Campbell PA, De Smet K. Correlation between inclination of the acetabular component and metal ion levels in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1291–1297.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;121:20–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dimanji SR, Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M. Hip resurfacing vs metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. In: Bhandari M, ed. Evidence Based Orthopaedics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2012:137–152.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fowbie VA, de la Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP. A comparison of total hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty—patients and outcomes. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009;67:108–112.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Garbuz DS, Tanzer M, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The John Charnley Award. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:318–325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Girard J, Vendittoli PA, Roy AG, Lavigne M. [Femoral offset restoration and clinical function after total hip arthroplasty and surface replacement of the hip: a randomized study] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008;94:376–381.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Glyn-Jones S, Gill HS, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a two-year study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:172–176.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Gold R, Nasser S, Stall S. Conventional roentgenography with special techniques for follow-up of hip arthroplasty. In: Amstutz HC, ed. Hip Arthroplasty. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1991:121–131.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Grigoris P, Roberts P, Panousis K, Bosch H. The evolution of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:125–134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gross TP, Liu F, Webb LA. Clinical outcome of the metal-on-metal hybrid Corin Cormet 2000 hip resurfacing system: an up to 11-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:533–538.e1.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hall D, Srikantharajah D, Anakwe R, Gaston P, Howie C. Patient-reported outcome following metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip and total hip replacement. Hip Int. 2009;19:245–250.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hing CB, Young DA, Dalziel RE, Bailey M, Back DL, Shimmin AJ. Narrowing of the neck in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a radiological study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1019–1024.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Holland JP, Langton DJ, Hashmi M. Ten-year clinical, radiological and metal ion analysis of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: from a single, non-designer surgeon. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:471–476.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Itayem R, Arndt A, Nistor L, McMinn D, Lundberg A. Stability of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty at two years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:158–162.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Jiang Y, Zhang K, Die J, Shi Z, Zhao H, Wang K. A systematic review of modern metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing vs standard total hip arthroplasty in active young patients. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:419–426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Killampalli VV, Kundra RK, Chaudhry J, Chowdhry M, Fisher NE, Reading AD. Resurfacing and uncemented arthroplasty for young hip arthritis: functional outcomes at 5 years. Hip Int. 2009;19:234–438.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kishida Y, Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Yamaguchi K, Yoshikawa H. Preservation of the bone mineral density of the femur after surface replacement of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:185–189.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Lavigne M, Masse V, Girard J, Roy AG, Vendittoli PA. [Return to sport after hip resurfacing or total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study] [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008;94:361–367.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Lavigne M, Therrien M, Nantel J, Roy A, Prince F, Vendittoli PA. The John Charnley Award. The functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same: a randomized, double-blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:326–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. LeDuff MJ, Wisk LE, Amstutz HC. Range of motion after stemmed total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing—a clinical study. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009;67:177–181.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lingard EA, Muthumayandi K, Holland JP. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between hip resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1550–1554.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Long WT, Dastane M, Harris MJ, Wan Z, Dorr LD. Failure of the Durom Metasul acetabular component. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:400–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mahomed N, Gandhi R, Daltroy L, Katz JN. The self-administered patient satisfaction scale for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis. 2011;2011:591253.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Mahomed NN, Liang MH, Cook EF, Daltroy LH, Fortin PR, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:1273–1279.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. McKellop H, Park SH, Chiesa R, Doorn P, Lu B, Normand P, Grigoris P, Amstutz H. In vivo wear of three types of metal on metal hip prostheses during two decades of use. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329(suppl):S128–S140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. McMinn D, Treacy R, Lin K, Pynsent P. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip: experience of the McMinn prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329(suppl):S89–S98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. McMinn DJ, Daniel J, Ziaee H, Pradhan C. Indications and results of hip resurfacing. Int Orthop. 2011;35:231–237.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Migaud H, Jobin A, Chantelot C, Giraud F, Laffargue P, Duquennoy A. Cementless metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty in patients less than 50 years of age: comparison with a matched control group using ceramic-on-polyethylene after a minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(suppl 3):23–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mont MA, Marker DR, Smith JM, Ulrich SD, McGrath MS. Resurfacing is comparable to total hip arthroplasty at short-term follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:66–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mont MA, Schmalzried TP. Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: important observations from the first ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(suppl 3):3–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Moore MS, McAuley JP, Young AM, Engh CA. Radiographic signs of osteointegration in porous coated acetabular components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;444:176–183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Newman MA, Barker KL, Pandit H, Murray DW. Outcomes after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: could we achieve better function? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:660–666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nishii T, Sugano N, Hidenobu MH, Takao M, Tsuyoshi KT, Yoshikawa H. Five-year results of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty in Asian patients. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:176–183.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ortiguera CJ, Pulliam IT, Cabanela ME. Total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis: matched-pair analysis of 188 hips with long-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:21–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Pandit H, Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, Gundle R, Whitwell D, Gibbons CL, Ostlere S, Athanasou N, Gill HS, Murray DW. Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:847–851.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip: a five to seven year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:592–600.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Rahman L, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Alkinj M. What is the midterm survivorship and function after hip resurfacing? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:3221–3227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Sandiford NA, Muirhead-Allwood SK, Skinner JA, Hua J. Metal on metal hip resurfacing versus uncemented custom total hip replacement—early results. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Schmalzried TP. Metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty: no way under the sun!—in opposition. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(suppl 2):70–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Schmalzried TP, Peters PC, Maurer BT, Bragdon CR, Harris WH. Long-duration metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasties with low wear of the articulating surfaces. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:322–331.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Schmidt M, Weber H, Schon R. Cobalt chromium molybdenum metal combination for modular hip prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329(suppl):S35–S47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Shimmin AJ, Back D. Femoral neck fractures following Birmingham hip resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:463–464.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Shimmin AJ, Baré JV. Comparison of functional results of hip resurfacing and total hip replacement: a review of the literature. Orthop Clin North Am. 2011;42:143–151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Smith TO, Nichols R, Donell ST, Hing CB. The clinical and radiological outcomes of hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Acta Orthop. 2010;81:684–695.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Smolders JM, Hol A, Rijnberg WJ, van Susante JL. Metal ion levels and functional results after either resurfacing hip arthroplasty or conventional metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2011;82:559–666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Pynsent PB. Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty: a minimum follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:167–170.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Treacy RB, McBryde CW, Shears E, Pynsent PB. Birmingham hip resurfacing: a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:27–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Vail TP, Mina CA, Yergler JD, Pietrobon R. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:123–131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Vendittoli PA, Ganapathi M, Roy AG, Lusignan D, Lavigne M. A comparison of clinical results of hip resurfacing arthroplasty and 28 mm metal on metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomised trial with 3–6 years follow-up. Hip Int. 2010;20:1–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Roy AG, Lusignan D. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing in patient less than 65 years old. Hip Int. 2006;16(suppl 4):73–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: How to Score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1995.

  72. Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A, Flury R, Windler M, Köster G, Lohmann CH. Metal-on-metal bearings and hypersensitivity in patients with artificial hip joints: a clinical and histomorphological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:28–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Fayyazi A, Lohmann CH. Histopathological changes around metal/metal joints indicates delayed type hypersensitivity: preliminary results of 14 cases. Osteologie. 2000;9:2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Zywiel MG, Marker DR, McGrath MS, Delanois RE, Mont MA. Resurfacing matched to standard total hip arthroplasty by preoperative activity levels—a comparison of postoperative outcomes. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2009;67:116–119.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Daphné Savoy for her assistance in the preparation of this manuscript and Abdul Aziz for his participation with patient followup and data collection for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Room 3114, 910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 4E3, Canada

    Wael A. Rahman MD, Nelson V. Greidanus MD, MPH, Bassam A. Masri MD, Clive P. Duncan MD, MSc & Donald S. Garbuz MD, MHSc

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom

    Alexander Siegmeth MD

Authors
  1. Wael A. Rahman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nelson V. Greidanus MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander Siegmeth MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bassam A. Masri MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Clive P. Duncan MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Donald S. Garbuz MD, MHSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nelson V. Greidanus MD, MPH.

Additional information

The institution of one or more of the authors (WAR, CPD, NVG, BAM, DSG) has received funding, during the study period, from Zimmer, Inc (Warsaw, IN, USA). One or more of the authors (BAM, CPD, DSG) certify that each has received or may receive payments or benefits, during the study period, an amount in excess of $10,000, from Zimmer, Inc. Each remaining author certifies that he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

This work was performed at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

About this article

Cite this article

Rahman, W.A., Greidanus, N.V., Siegmeth, A. et al. Patients Report Improvement in Quality of Life and Satisfaction After Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471, 444–453 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2645-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2645-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation