MiniHip™ - product overview
12Pages

Product overview

Patient demographics and expectations have changed[1]. Being younger, more active and wanting to return to their normal way of life quicker and without compromise, these patients require an implant that overcomes the limitations of conventional hip replacement. MiniHip™ is designed to give patients all the advantages of a traditional total hip replacement with the added benefit of preserving the natural anatomy, offering a solution that is an ideal intervention for a patient requiring treatment options into the second, third and fourth decade. Preserving the natural anatomy and restoring...

Conserving bone Preserving soft tissue Restoring biomechanics Responsible Innova

Conserving bone MiniHip™ allows for greater bone conservation at the time of operation and in the long term. Initial bone conservation 1. Trochanter conserving MiniHip™ is designed to follow the natural anatomy: there is no lateral flare and the entry point avoids the greater trochanter. 3. Neck preserving MiniHip™ neck resection is intended to preserve the neck and calcar to assist in promoting more natural physiological loading, unlike conventional THR[2]. 2. Diaphyseal sparing The length and design of MiniHip™ allows for more bone preservation of the medullary canal than traditional THR....

MiniHip™ offers an early solution that is an ideal intervention for a patient requiring treatment options into the second, third and fourth decade. Long-term bone conservation Physiological loading MiniHip™ loads the femur more naturally than a conventional THR in terms of medial strain[3], tensile strain, compressive strain[4] and strain energy density[2]. This may help facilitate good quality proximal bone stock into the future. Unimplanted MiniHip™ 5% difference Unimplanted conventional 30% difference Finite element analysis shows compressive strain in the femur for an unimplanted femur,...

Preserving soft tissue MIAA™ (Minimally Invasive Anterior Approach) Instrumentation MiniHip™ is an ideal implant for use with a direct anterior approach, soft tissue sparing procedure, as it follows the natural anatomy by going ‘round the corner’ of the calcar. Direct anterior approach patients have reported earlier discharge and mobilisation as compared to patients who receive the posterior approach[5]. MiniHip™ implant and MIAA™ instrumentation systems are ideally suited to direct anterior, helping to facilitate patient recovery and a faster return to activity.

MiniHip™ and direct anterior, an ideal synergy Responsible Innovation

orina Diomecranics Femoral varus/valgus anatomies MiniHip™ offers a unique way of restoring biomechanics for different patient anatomies. MiniHip™ is a CT based design and is not constrained in its placement by a conventional, intrusive lateral profile. This provides a unique solution to restoring the biomechanics of multiple patient anatomies. Early and mid-term clinical results with MiniHip™ illustrate reproducibility of: ■ CCD to less than 0.6o|e| ■ Femoral offset to less than 3mm|61 ■ Leg length to less than 1 mm161 varus anatomy neutral anatomy valgus anatomy

Femoral anteversion MiniHip™ offers the ability to restore anteversion by retaining a portion of the femoral neck. The size and shape of the stem, coupled with the retention of the femoral neck enables MiniHip™ to restore the biomechanics of multiple anatomies including highly anteverted femurs[7]. Responsible Innovation

Conserving bone MiniHip™ is designed to minimise bone loss during the time of operation, and promote physiological loading to maintain good bone stock into the long term. Preserving soft tissue Ideally suited to the direct anterior approach, MiniHip™ is designed to be less invasive to soft tissues, potentially leading to faster patient recovery. Restoring biomechanics With an implant profile that preserves the femoral neck and follows the natural curvature of the medial calcar, MiniHip™ is designed to restore biomechanics for multiple anatomies.

Responsible Innovation

References: 1. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2009 Oct;467(10):2606-2612. 5. Martin CT, Pugely AJ, Gao Y, Clark CR. A comparison of hospital length of stay and short term morbidity between the anterior and posterior approaches to total hip arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 2013 May;28(5):849-854. 2. Simpson D, Yeoman M, Lowry C, Cizinauskas A, Vincent G, Jerosch J, Collins S. Load transfer into the proximal femur:...