Medacta Corporate

on demand


Continuing challenges in Total Hip Replacement (THR) include:

  • Dislocation prevention[1,2]
  • Leg length discrepancy assessment[3,4]
  • Femoral offset restoration[5]
  • Cup positioning to avoid edge loading[6]
  • Impingement analysis[7]
  • Range of Motion assessment[7]

Medacta designed the MyHip to address these issues, focusing on patient well-being and improving accuracy in implant positioning and sizing, through:

  • Precise 3D preoperative planning[8,9] which can halve the number of alignment outliers when compared to 2D templating.
  • Patient-specific guides[12,13,14] which can reproduce the 3D preoperative plan.

MyHip is a system providing 3D preoperative planning and patient-specific guides,
developed following the success of Medacta Patient Matched Technology


Accurate implant positioning and sizing

Complete 3D preoperative planning with 3D kinematic simulation, which  considers pelvic tilt

Complete in-house technology the MyHip process is entirely performed by Medacta

A personal MyHip technician just for you

Only 3 weeks lead time the shortest delivery time in today’s market for this technology


Medacta receives the CT images of the patient‘s leg.

A virtual position of the implant is proposed to the surgeon who can modify the planning as he wishes.

Starting from the 3D reconstruction of the joint and following the surgeon preferences the MyHip preoperative planning is performed.

Once the planning has been validated by the surgeon, the in-house manufacturing process starts.


[1] Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip replacement arthroplasties. J bone Joint Sur Am. 1978;60:217-220.
[2] Nishii T, Sugano N, Miki H, Koyama T, Takao M, Yoshikawa H. Influence of component positions on dislocation: computed tomographic evaluations in a consecutive series of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:162-166.
[3] Röder C, Vogel R, Burri L, Dietrich D, Staub LP. Total hip arthroplasty: leg length inequality impairs functional outcomes and patient satisfaction. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2012; 13:95.
[4] Austin MS, Hozack WJ, Sharkey PF, Rothman RH. Stability and leg length equality in Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003; 18(3) suppl1]:88-90.
[5] Cassidy KA, Noticewala MS, Macaulay W, Lee JH, Geller JA. Effect of femoral offset on pain and function after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(10):1863-1869.
[6] Wan Z, Boutary M et al. The influence of acetabular component position on Wear in THA. J Arthroplasty. 2008 Jan;23(1):51-6.
[7] D’Lima DD, Urquhart AG, Buehler KO, et al. The effect of the orientation of the acetabular and femoral components on the range of motion of the hip at different head-neck ratios. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Mar;82(3):315-21.
8] Müller ME. Total hip replacement: planning, technique and complications. In: Surgical management of denegerative arthritis of the lower limb. Philadelphia: Lea and Faber., 1975:90-113.
[9] Müller ME. Lessons of 30 years of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1992;274:12-21.
10] Sariali E, Mouttet A, Pasquier G, Durante E, Catone Y. Accuracy of reconstruction of the hip using computerised three-dimensional pre-operative planning and a cementless modular neck. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2009;91-B:333-40.
[11] Sariali E, Mauprivez R, Khiami F, Pascal-Mousselard H, Catonné Y. Accuracy of the preoperative planning for cementless total hip arthroplasty. A randomised comparison between three-dimensional computerised planning and conventional templating. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012 Apr;98(2):151-8.
[12] Small T, Krebs V, Molloy R, Bryan J. Comparison of Acetabular Shell Position Using Patient Specific Instruments vs. Standard Surgical Instruments: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Arthroplasty. 2013 Oct 16.
[13] Buller  L, Smith T, Bryan J, Klika A, Barsoum W. The use of patient-specific instrumentation improves the accuracy of acetabular component placement. J Arthroplasty. 2013 Apr;28(4):631-6.
[14] Hananouchi T, Saito M, Koyama T, Sugano N, Yoshikawa H.Tailor-made Surgical Guide Reduces Incidence of Outliers of Cup Placement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Apr;468(4):1088-95.
[15] 15-Charbonnier C, Schmid J. Pelvic tilting. Artanim Internal Report, 2013.
[16] Wolf A, Digioia 3rd AM, Mor AB, Jaramaz B. Cup alignment error model for total hip arthroplasty. ClinOrthopRelat Res. 2005 Aug;(437):132-7.
[17] Affatato S, Traina F, Mazzega-Fabbro C, Sergo V, Viceconti M. Is ceramic-on-ceramic squeaking phenomenon reproducible in vitro? A long-term simulator study under severe conditions. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009 Oct;91(1):264-71. 
[18] De Haan R, Campbell PA, Su EP, De Smet KA. Revision of metal-on-metal resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: the influence of malpositioning of the components. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 90:1158–1163.



MyKnee is a patient-specific cutting block, allowing the surgeon to realize his pre-operative 3D planning, based on CT or MRI images of the patient’s knee.
This innovative concept combines different features giving potential benefits to both the surgeon and to the patient.

Read more


MySpine is a patient specific pedicle screw placement guide, allowing the surgeon to determine his pre-operative 3d planning, based on CT images of the patient’s spine. This innovative concept combines several different features to offer potential benefits to both the surgeon and the patient.

Read more