Materialise aMace

Personalized acetabular implants

Up to 27% of revision total hip replacements are re-revisions due to a suboptimal fixation and biomechanical reconstruction1. And unfortunately, 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.

Metal 3D-printed implant on a hip model

Why choose aMace for hip revisions?

Rely on a 98% patient satisfaction rate3


Trust in a 97% implant survival rate5


Based on 15+ years of experience


Over 2,000 complex cases made easy


How you can break the hip 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

MDR compliant

Materialise aMace is considered a class III custom-made implantable device under MDR and is covered by QMS certificate G13 110051 0001.

The features of an aMace implant

The aMace personalized acetabular implant is a one-piece solution, made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) — a material preferred for orthopaedic applications due to its biocompatibility, mechanical strength, corrosion resistance, and osteointegration.

materialise-amace-3d-printed-implant.jpg

1) Porous structure​:

The material properties mimic the mechanical properties of trabecular bone. Secondary fixation is improved through a design that allows bone ongrowth.8 For large, defect-filling implants, porous structures also allow a total weight reduction of the implant. ​

2) Outer surface options​:

Now, you can choose which sections on the implant's defect-filling structure are porous and which are polished, based on the patient’s anatomy. A polished surface can be applied in regions with complete bone loss to avoid soft tissue irritations.​


3) Inner surface: 

Integrated studs on the implant's inner surface enhance the adhesion of the cemented cup. ​


4) Flanges​: 

Three flanges secure the implant to the bone, with screws strategically oriented to optimize fixation in areas of highest bone quality, ensuring a stable and well-supported construct.​

Indications

Ordering process

Illustrated workflow showing the process of creating patient-specific implants. Steps include: uploading CT scans (depicted by a scanner and patient), performing 3D analysis on a computer, designing the implant digitally, producing the patient-specific parts, and delivering them via truck to a surgeon at a hospital. A dashed line connects the steps, with a timeline below indicating 2 weeks for analysis and design, and approximately 6 weeks for production and delivery.
Screenshot of the Materialise SurgiCase software showing a 3D rendering of a pelvis with a blue aMace acetabular implant and screw placements. The interface includes a checklist for reviewing bone thickness analysis, implant position, bone preparation, screw details, and implant-and-screw compliance.

Clinical evidence

Access the latest articles supporting clinical evidence for the aMace hip implant. For a complete overview, please refer to the clinical data report.

Zampelis V. et al. — Acta Orthopaedica

Custom-made 3D-printed cup-cage implants for complex acetabular revisions: evaluation of pre-planned versus achieved positioning and 1-year migration data in 10 patients (2021) 

Scharff-Baauw M. et al. — Acta Orthopaedica

Good results at 2-year follow-up of a custom-made triflange acetabular component for large acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity: a prospective case series of 50 hips (2021) 

Sayf, F. et al. — Bone Jt Open

Custom-made acetabular revision arthroplasty for pelvic discontinuity: Can we handle the challenge?: a prospective cohort study (2023)

Gruber, M.S. et al — BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Functional and radiological outcomes after treatment with custom-made acetabular components in patients with Paprosky type 3 acetabular defects: short-term results (2020)

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

Interfacing with the engineers is straightforward and first rate, leaving you with a sense of confidence, which is an important part of a surgeon’s preoperative approach to these challenging cases.

Prof. D. Dunlop​Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, Southampton University Hospital, Southampton, UK

The aMace implant was preferred over other solutions because it offers a complete solution, much more patient-specific than any other implant, through calculations — scientifically validated by peer-reviewed research — of the optimal implant thickness and strength, best screw position according to bone quality, and analysis of the impact on biomechanical functioning of a specific patient.

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

I was confident that the aMace implant was the right choice for my patient because of the attention to the biomechanical aspect of the implant design.

Dr. Henrik Delport​Orthopaedic Surgeon and Consultant, AZ Nikolaas, Belgium

Get inspired

Discover how others benefit from the personalized aMace implant

Frequently asked questions

L-102611-02

References:
1 Swedish Arthroplasty Register, Annual Report 2014
2 NJR 21st Annual Report 2024
3Baauw et al. 2017; Colen et al. 2013; Myncke et al. 2017; Scharf-Baauw et al. 2021​
4Baauw et al. 2017; Citak et al. 2017; Scharf-Baauw et al. 2021; Gruber et al. 2020; Faraj et al. 2023​
5Baauw et al. 2020, 2017, 2015; Citak et al, 2017; Colen et al. 2013; Goriainov et al. 2018; Myncke et al. 2017; Van Eemeren et al. 2020; Matar et al. 2020; Gruber et al. 2020; Scharff-Baauw et al. 2021; Augustyn et al. 2022; Faraj et al. 2023; Madanipour et al. 2022​
6Baauw et al. 2020, 2017, 2015; Citak et al, 2017; Colen et al. 2013; Goriainov et al. 2018; Myncke et al. 2017; Faraj et al. 2023; Madanipour et al. 2022; Demol et al. 2012​
7Myncke et al. 2017
8Demol et al. 2012 

This content is intended for healthcare professionals only