Materialise aMace

Personalized acetabular implants

Up to 27% of hip revisions are re-revisions due to a suboptimal fixation and biomechanical reconstruction1. Re-revisions are three times more likely to fail compared to the first revision2. The aMace personalized implant is designed to break this revision cycle.

Talk to our experts

Metal 3D-printed implant on a hip model

Break the revision cycle

Rely on a 100% patient satisfaction rate4

Trust in a 98% implant survival rate1

Based on 12+ years of experience

Over 1,300 complex cases made easy

How we enable you to break the revision cycle

Unique 3D pelvis analyses

Based on the segmented CT scan, our experienced clinical engineers implement AI-enabled technology to quantify the acetabular bone loss and available bone stock by measuring the thickness of the bone and cortex over the entire surface.

3D digital model of a hip with a color map on top

The aMace implant offers the possibility to regain full quality of life for patients with complex acetabular defects and lowers the risk of re-revisions, immobility, and permanent care.

Prof. Dr. Med. T. GehrkeChief Physician, Helios ENDO-Klinik Hamburg

Get inspired

Discover how others benefit from the personalized aMace implant

Learn about aMace and get support

Learn how to get started, and see how leading experts are using the aMace solution. If you are already a user, our customer support can help you with all your questions.

Frequently asked questions

Interested in aMace?

Do you have any questions, or are you interested in getting a first free 3D analysis of your next complex arthroplasty case? Get in touch with us, and let’s discuss how we can support your work.

Talk to our experts


1 Swedish Arthroplasty Register, Annual Report 2014
2 Data UK Joint Registry
3 1/58 at mean follow-up time of 25 months, Baauw et al., 2017, 2015; Citak et al., 2017; Colen et al., 2013; Myncke et al., 2017; Goriainov et al. 2018
4 18/18, Baauw et al., 2017; Colen et al., 2013
5 From a Harris Hip Score of 22/100 pre-op to 59/100 2.5 y post-op – Citak et al., 2017.
6 Goriainov et al. 2018
7 81% (Myncke et al., 2017)
8 73% (16/22, Myncke et al., 2017)
9 N=74, 2 y post-op - Baauw et al., 2017, 2015; Citak et al., 2017; Colen et al., 2013; Myncke et al., 2017; Goriainov et al. 2018
10 Demol et al., 2012

This content is intended for healthcare professionals only