Background: This study aims to design, analyze and manufacture lightweight hip implants which have sufficient fatigue performance to enable use in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods: The lattice structure was applied on an implant geometry, which is frequently used in THA, to provide a reduction in mass and increase flexibility. The implant surfaces were roughened using semispherical pores to improve the osseointegration. The specimens were manufactured by means of direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) and fatigue tests were performed according to ISO 7206-4:2010. Moreover, fatigue analyses of the designed implants were numerically carried out using the finite element method. Results: The applied lattice structure on implant geometry leads to 15-17% reduction in the masses of implants compared to a solid one. It has also been determined that the lightweight implants show more flexible behavior with increasing pore diameter used on the implant surfaces while keeping the lattice structure geometry constant. The fatigue test and finite element analysis (FEA) results are in reasonable agreement. In addition, additively manufactured solid implants have exhibited similar fatigue performance with one produced by conventional methods. Conclusions: This paper presents design, analysis, manufacturing and fatigue test processes of lightweight hip implants. The lattice structure and the semispherical pores were applied on a reference implant geometry and they were manufactured by DMLS. The fatigue tests and FEA were performed to evaluate newly designed implant performance. All the implants successfully completed the fatigue tests without any damage.

Porous implant made of titanium  Forming the outer surface of the implant (shell region) from semi-spherical micropores (controlled porous)  Effects of using different scanning strategies and different manufacturing parameters in additive manufacturing on mechanical properties

Osseointegration processes of Massive vs. porous implants were compared. It was observed that cells were concentrated on the surface of Massive implants. Therefore, osseointegration between implant and bone was less than that of porous implants. In transitive porous implants, as opposed to Massive implants, an outer region was formed in the bone-implant interface that allowed tissue development.

No abstract