CONCELOC Advanced Porous Titanium

CONCELOC is our patented method of creating a fully randomised porous structure with predictable porosity, pore size and node interconnectivity.

  • Made from Ti-6Al-4V and shown to provide excellent biological fixation in a validated ovine model3,4
  • The same technology with over 3.5 years of proven clinical history in our REDAPT Revision Cementless System5
  • Features a porosity of 80%6 and a pore size of 228μm to 633μm7

Product Features

Surgical Techniques & Videos

Medical Education

No results.
No results.


*Compared to symmetrical tibial baseplates.


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. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.v

12. ODEP. Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel. Available at Accessed 04 August 2021.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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

20. Smith+Nephew 2020. Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the accuracy, efficiency and satisfaction using VISIONAIRE. Internal Report. EA/RECON/VISIONAIRE/001/v6.

21. 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.