Messaging Brochure

LEGION◊ CONCELOC◊
Cementless
Total Knee System
Smith+Nephew’s legacy of trusted innovation brings
you the latest cementless TKA technology in LEGION
CONCELOC. LEGION CONCELOC’s innovative 3D printed
cementless technology will revolutionize Smith+Nephew’s
comprehensive knee portfolio, providing:

• CONCELOC biological fixation

• Efficiency and versatility in the OR1
• Proven technology through trusted innovation2
CONCELOC◊ biological fixation
CONCELOC Advanced Porous Titanium
Smith+Nephew pioneered CONCELOC, a patented method for creating a
fully randomized porous structure with predictable porosity, pore size and
node interconnectivity. CONCELOC is made from Ti-6Al-4V, and has
been shown to provide excellent biological fixation in a validated,
ovine model.3,4 This is the same technology with over 3.5 years of
proven clinical history in Smith+Nephew’s REDAPT◊ Revision
Cementless System.5

• Porosity: 80%6
• Pore size: 228μm to 633μm7
• Material: Titanium Alloy (Ti-6Al-4V)8

Cancellous bone at 25x

magnification

CONCELOC at 25x
magnification

CONCELOC at 80x
magnification

LEGION◊ CONCELOC◊ Cementless Total Knee System Messaging Brochure 3

Anatomic design

Anatomic footprint CONCELOC Tibia Baseplate Optimized Anatomic Keel

• Achieves >90% bony • Optimized press fit pegs and self • Proportionally medialized on
coverage on average9 vs prepping ribs the proximal tibia to align with
symmetric baseplate • Precision Milled Insert Locking the intramedullary canal
• Designed to match anatomy Mechanism with over 15 years • Anatomically-shaped tibial
of the tibia for optimal cortical of clinical success15 baseplates have an improved fin
rim coverage and even • Anterior bridges for • design and significantly improve
stress distribution10,11 enhanced strength coverage of the tibia* 9,11,16-18
• Designed to minimize • Indicated for cemented and • Asymmetric anterior fins
tibia rotational errors and cementless applications
baseplate overhang12,13 *Compared to symmetrical tibial baseplates
Efficiency and versatility in the OR
The LEGION◊ CONCELOC◊ Cementless Total Knee's versatility can be used in conjunction with our enabling
technology solutions, including VISIONAIRE◊ Patient Matched Technology, CORI◊ Handheld Robotics, SYNC
Instrumentation and the entire Real Intelligence ecosystem. This versatility enables Smith+Nephew surgeons
to increase accuracy as well as OR efficiency,*19-21 productivity by reducing surgical steps**22,23, and designed
to reduce instrument footprint and time.†

VISIONAIRE Patient Matched Technology

Benefits of VISIONAIRE include:24

• Less invasive procedure for patients§^

• Reduces blood loss§
• Shortens surgery time (by 7.3%)§
• Reduces odds of mechanical alignment outliers (by 40%)§
• Reduces instrumentation needed for surgery§

In totality LEGION CONCELOC combined with

VISIONAIRE on average can lead to a 50% savings in time
by removing cement setup time and 23 instrumented
steps from the procedure.7-15,25-28

CORI Surgical System

The CORI System offers precision milling29 that allows surgeons to have an
accurate bone resection combined with advanced ligament balancing.***30 CORI's
precision milling also provides the bone slurry shown to aid biological fixation for
TKA porous.
* CORI Surgical System vs conventional surgery
** VISIONAIRE Patient Matched Technology vs conventional TKA
†
SYNC Instrumentation vs conventional
*** With the use of the handpiece

compared to conventional TKA; meta-analysis of 24 studies

§

due to the elimination of the required intramedullary alignment rods

^
Smith+Nephew’s legacy of trusted innovation
With more than 20 years of successful clinical history,6,25,31 LEGION◊ TKS utilizes Smith+Nephew’s
unique CONCELOC◊ Advanced Porous Titanium combined with clinically relevant features that has
allowed LEGION to be a mainstay in knee orthopaedics. LEGION CONCELOC offers a suite of legacy
and proven design features, including:

• Anatomic tibia design

• Medialized anatomic tibial keel
• CONCELOC advanced cementless fixation with 5 years of clinical history6
• S-shaped trochlear groove for optimal patella tracking32
• 1mm poly increments

GENESIS◊ GENESIS II

1984 1988 1995 1996 2009

TRICON PROFIX◊ LEGION

Notes

LEGION◊ CONCELOC◊ Cementless Total Knee System Messaging Brochure 7

Smith & Nephew, Inc. www.smith-nephew.com ◊
Trademark of Smith+Nephew
1450 Brooks Road All Trademarks acknowledged
Memphis, Tennessee 38116 ©2021 Smith & Nephew, Inc.
USA 29075 V1 08/21

References
1. Yayac M, Harrer S, Hozack WJ, Parvizi J, Courtney M. The use of cementless components does not significantly increase procedural costs in total knee
arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:407-712 2. Watson J, Jordan J. LEGION◊ Primary Knee System for total knee arthroplasty: Design rationale and early
results. Bone & Joint Science. 2015;5(1):1-8. 3. Fenwick S, Wilson D, Williams M, et al. A load bearing model to assess osseointegration of novel surfaces - A
pilot study. World Biomater Cong, Amsterdam, NL, May 28-Jun 1, 2008, 233. 4. Smith & Nephew 2015. NCS249 5. Moriarty P, Vles G, Haddad F, Konan S. Early
clinical and radiological outcomes of a new tapered fluted titanium monobloc revision stem in hip arthroplasty. Act Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Jan 24. [Epub
ahead of print]. 6. Smith + Nephew 2015. Orthopaedic Research Report OR-14-091A 7. S&N Material Specification 0071120. 8. Shah S, Agarwal N, Jain A.
MRI Based Comparison of Tibial Bone Coverage by Five Knee Prosthesis: Anthropometric Study in Indians. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1643-1646. 9. Westich GH,
Agulnick MA, Laskin, RS, Haas SB, Sculco TP. Current analysis of tibial coverage in total knee arthroplasty. The Knee. 1997;4:87-91. 10. Westich, GH, Laskin RS,
Haas SB, Sculco TD. Resection Specimen Analysis of Tibial Coverage in Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1994;309:163-175. 11. Shah S, Agarwal
N, Jain A. MRI Based Comparison of Tibial Bone Coverage by Five Knee Prosthesis: Anthropometric Study in Indians. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:1643-1646.
12. Martin S, Saurez A, Ismaily S, et al. Maximizing Tibial Coverage Is Detrimental to Proper Rotational Alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:121–125.
13. Westrich GH, Haas SB, Insall JN, Frachie A. Resection specimen analysis of proximal tibial anatomy based on 100 total knee arthroplasty specimens. J
Arthroplasty. 1995;10:47–51. 14. Hartel MJ, Loosli Y, Gralla J, et al. The mean anatomical shape of the tibial plateau at the knee arthroplasty resection level:
an investigation using MRI. The Knee. 2009;16:452–457. 15. ODEP. Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel. Available at http://www.odep.org.uk. Accessed 04
August 2021. 16. Laskin RS, Davis J. Total knee replacement using the Genesis II prosthesis: a 5-year follow up study of the first 100 consecutive cases.
Knee. 2005;12(3):163-167. 17. Victor J, Ghijselings S, Tajdar F, et al. Total knee arthroplasty at 15-17 years: does implant design affect outcome? Int Orthop.
2014;38(2):235-241. 18. Teeter MG, Thoren J, Yuan X, et al. Migration of a cemented fixed-bearing, polished titanium tibial baseplate (Genesis II) at ten
years. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B:616-621. 19. Batailler C, White N, Ranaldi FP, et al. Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic assisted
unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27:1232. 20. Herry Y BC, Lording T, Servien E, Neyret P, Lustig S. Improved
joint-line restitution in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a robotic-assisted surgical technique. Int Orthop. 2017;41:2265-2271. 21. Bollars P,
Boeckxstaens A, Mievis J, Kalaai S, Schotanus MGM, Janssen D. Preliminary experience with an image free handheld robot for total knee arthroplasty: 77
cases compared with a matched control group. Eur. J. Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2020;30(4):723-9 22. Smith+Nephew 2020. Systematic literature review and
meta-analysis of the accuracy, efficiency and satisfaction using VISIONAIRE. Internal Report. EA/RECON/VISIONAIRE/001/v6. 23. Abane L, Anract P, Boisgard
S, Descamps S, Courpied JP, Hamadouche M. A comparison of patient-specific and conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A multicentre
randomised controlled trial. Bone and Joint Journal. 2015;97(1):56-63. 24. Smith+Nephew 2020. Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the
accuracy, efficiency and satisfaction using VISIONAIRE. Internal Report. EA/RECON/VISIONAIRE/001/v6 25. Nadaud M, Snyder MA, Brown D, McPherron
A. New trends and early clinical outcomes with a modern knee revision system. Orthopedics. 2007;30(8):97. 26. Christensen DD, Klement MR, Moschetti
WE, Fillingham YA. Current Evidence-based Indications for Modern Noncemented Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(20):823-829.
27. Nankivell M, West G, Pourgiezis N. Operative efficiency and accuracy of patient-specific cutting guides in total knee replacement. ANZ J Surg. 2015;85:452-
455. 28. Hofmann AA. The cementless knee: lifetime guarantee on parts and labour – affirms. Orthopaedic Proceedings. 2018;97-B. 29. Smith+Nephew
2020. CORI and NAVIO Technical Specification Comparison. Internal Report. ER0488 REV B. 30. Kaper BP, Villa A. Accuracy and Precision of a Handheld
Robotic-guided Distal Femoral Osteotomy in Robotic-assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty. European Knee Society Arthroplasty Conference;2019; Valencia, Spain
31. Bieger R, Kappe T, Fraitzl CR, Reichel H. The aetiology of total knee arthroplasty failure influences the improvement in knee function. Arch Orthop Trauma
Surg. 2013;133(2):237-241 32. Kaper BP, Woolfrey M, Bourne RB. The effect of built-in external femoral rotation on patellofemoral tracking in the genesis II
total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15(8):964-969.