Careers News Investors
Home Health Care Professionals Products

LEGION TKS

ORTHOPAEDICS

LEGION◊ Total Knee System

A comprehensive implant portfolio that offers the versatility to meet patients’ needs in the most difficult cases, from complex primary to revision.1-6

LEGION TKS Hero 1.png

The knee you know. Innovation you demand

Designed to accommodate diverse patient anatomies and surgical philosophies, the LEGION Knee System gives surgeons modular adaptability for cementless, cruciate retaining and posterior-stabilized approaches.

After decades of clinical use and joint registry survivorship data covering 15 years,7 it continues to evolve using with new features and technologies, balancing the knee you know with innovation you demand for:

+ Personalization

Compatibility with robotic-assisted surgery facilitates personalized alignment techniques

+ Versatility

An extensive implant range, plus the option of a medial stabilized insert

+ Performance

Unique 3D-printed titanium coating to help support biological fixation

LEGION TKS Hero 2.png

LEGION-TKS_Surgeon Web_3 MacDonald.png

Strength in numbers



Restoring kinematic function

The LEGION System’s anatomic design was engineered to help restore the structures, biomechanics and kinematics of the native knee. Browse individual implant features to learn how they affect functional outcomes.

LEGION-TKS_Surgeon Web_2 Nickel.png

LEGION TKS surgical technique

Watch a surgeon-led demonstration for tips and guidance on the surgical workflow.

Faster with cementless40



CONCELOC Advanced Porous Titanium is a patented method of creating a fully randomized and porous structure to help support bone ingrowth without the need for cement. Made with Ti-6Al-4V, it offers:

+ Stable fixation with 98.5% survivorship demonstrated at 2 years41-42

+ Significant improvements in patient reported outcome measures (KKOS JR/FJS), shown in a study****43

+ 80% porosity and pore size of 228µm to 633µm44,45

LEGION-TKS_Faster with Cementless_Web_1.png

Why go cementless?


Does cementless TKA improve efficiency ?

When compared to cemented approaches, cementless TKA can lead to shorter operating time46 and eliminate the possibility of cement fragments that can lead to third-body wear.

Can cementless TKA enhance patient recovery ?

Cementless TKA has the potential to offer a biologic interface for fixation47 and can help reduce the risk of fat embolism and other issues related to cement pressurization (compared to cemented approaches).48

Will cementless TKA result in better patient outcomes ?

While not guaranteed, cementless TKA has been shown to improve aspects such as joint function and quality of life (when compared to pre-operative values).43,49

LEGION-TKS_Surgeon Web_1 Schwarzkopf.png

Medial stabilized insert



Adapting to a global trend in knee arthroplasty,50 the LEGION Medial Stabilized insert is designed to improve kinematics and maintain stability while being independent of PCL function.8

Introduced to offer procedural versatility, the medial stabilized insert has two key features:

1. To maintain medial stability similar to the normal knee, the insert is designed with a higher anterior medial lip

2. For extension and lateral rollback, the flattened lateral geometry enables the screw-home mechanism

LEGION-TKS_Medial Stabilized_Web_1.png

Benefits of robotic-assisted surgery



To adapt to specific patient needs with fully personalized surgery, the LEGION System can be used seamlessly with our CORI Surgical System to plan and execute surgery with reproducible accuracy.51 This includes:

+ Real-time planning and gap assessment

+ Portable system with a small OR footprint, ideal for outpatient surgery in the ASC52

+ Choice of image-based and image-free options to plan and execute personalized implant alignment

Learn more about the CORI System
LEGION-TKS_CORI Robotics_Web_1.png

System options

One system, all solutions. Easy as 1,2,3

Reference material

Related products

Disclaimers

*LEGION PS OXINIUM with resurfaced patella (Adjusted HR 0.82[95% CI:0.75-0.89]; p<0.001.

**When adjusted for group, gender, year, cohort, BMI group, ASA patella used and PS/CR constraint. Reduction in the risk of revision for infection – p=0.002. Reduction in the risk of revision for femoral aseptic loosening – p<0.001.

***Compared to PFC Sigma, Optetrak, and NexGen Legacy in a 1998 study.

****p<0.001.

*****95% joint line restoration – n=110. 77% Reduced constraint vs manual – n=115.

 

Products may not be available in all markets because product availability is subject to the regulatory and/or medical practices in individual markets. Please contact your Smith+Nephew representative or distributor if you have questions about the availability of Smith+Nephew products in your area. For detailed product information, including indications for use, contraindications, precautions and warnings, please consult the product’s applicable Instructions for Use (IFU) prior to use.

 

Citations
  1. Bieger R, et al. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(2):237-241. 
  2. Mufty S, et al. Knee. 2014;21(2):424-427. 
  3. Perrin DL, et al. Can J Surg. 2020;63(3):E196-E201. 
  4. Hermans K, et al. Knee. 2019;26(1):222-227.
  5. Watson J, et al. Bone & Joint Science. 2015;5(1):1-8.
  6. Nadaud M, et al. Orthopedics. 2007;30(8):97.
  7. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), Automated Industry Report System (AIRS), ID No.15117† for Smith & Nephew Australia, LEGION OXINIUM PS/GENESIS II TKS 
    8. (Procedures from 1 September 1999 – 31 December 2024), Accessed 17 March 2026. Available here: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/d/guest/aoa-full-report-2025
  8. Smith+Nephew 2025. Internal Report. K24-LGMD.
  9. Smith+Nephew 2015. Orthopaedic Research Report OR-14-091A. 
  10. Smith+Nephew. Material Specification. 0071120.
  11. National Joint Registry (NJR), NJR 22nd Annual Report 2025 Knees.
  12. ODEP. Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP). Available at http://www.odep.org.uk. Accessed January 23, 2025. 
  13. 2005 ASM International Engineering Material Achievement Award.
  14. Hunter G, et al. Journal of ASTM International. 2005;2:1-14.
  15. Long M, et al. Abstract presented at: 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterial. April 22-26, 1998, San Diego, California.
  16. Parikh A, et al. Poster presented at: 55th Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 2009. Poster no. 2340.
  17. Parikh A, et al. Poster presented at: 2013 Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society. Poster no. 1028.
  18. Papannagari R, et al. Poster presented at: 2011 Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society. Poster no. 1141.
  19. Smith+Nephew 2010. Internal Report. OR-10-155.
  20. Aldinger P, et al. Poster presented at: 2017 Annual Meeting of the Orthopaedic Research Society. Poster no. 1037.
  21. Smith+Nephew 2016. Internal Report. OR-16-127.
  22. Dalal A, et al. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2012;100A:2147-2158.
  23. ASTM International Standard Specification for Wrought Zirconium-2.5 Niobium Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R60901) Designation: F2384–10.
  24. ASTM International Standard Specification for Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloy Castings and Casting Alloy for Surgical Implants (UNS R30075): Designation: F75–12.
  25. ASTM International Standard Specification for Wrought Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloys for Surgical Implants (UNS R31537, UNS R31538, and UNS R31539): Designation: F1537-20
  26. Laskin RS, et al. Knee. 2005;12(3):163-167.
  27. Teeter MG, et al. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B:616-621.
  28. Shah S, et al. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2015;30(9):1643-1646.
  29. Westrich GH, et al. The Knee. 1997;4(4):221-226.
  30. Victor J, et al. Int Orthop. 2014;38(2):235-241. 
  31. Westrich GH, et al. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(1):47–51
  32. Hartel MJ, et al. The Knee. 2009;16:452–457.
  33. Martin S, et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):121–125.
  34. Kaper BP, et al. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15(8):964-969. 
  35. Kong CG, et al. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014;134(4):571-576.
  36. Ji SJ, et al. Chin Med J (Engl). 2015;128(21):2866-2872.
  37. Ohno H, et al. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2016;50(5):527-532.
  38. Malik A, et al. Int Orthop. 2010;34(7):965-972. 
  39. Haas SB, et al. Knee. 2000;7:25-29.
  40. Nam D, et al. J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jul;32(7):2151-2155.
  41. Naudie DR, et al. Presented at: COA/CORS/CORA 2025 Annual Meeting, June 11–14, 2025; Vancouver, Canada.
  42. antonioli S, et al. Poster presented at: Orthopaedic Research Society 2025 Annual Meeting, February 7–11, 2025; Phoenix, AZ, USA
  43. Prinos A, et al. Poster presented at Orthopaedic Research Society 2024 Annual Meeting, February 2–6, 2024.
  44. Smith+Nephew. Material Specification. 0071120. 
  45. Smith+Nephew 2015. Internal Report. OR-14-09A.
  46. Yayac M, et al. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:407-712.
  47. Behery OA, et al. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2013;79(1):6-10.
  48. Donaldson AJ, et al. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102:12-22. 
  49. Laende EK, et al. Poster presented at Orthopaedic Research Society 2024 Annual Meeting, February 2–6, 2024.
  50. American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) 2024 Annual Report.
  51. Thiengwittayaporn S, et al. Int Orthop. 2021;45:2851–2858.
  52. Smith+Nephew 2020. Comparison of operating room footprint for robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty systems. Internal Report. EO.REC.PCS015.002.v1.
  53. Smith+Nephew 2020. CORI and NAVIO Technical Specification Comparison. Internal Report. ER0488 REV B. 
  54. Seyler MT. Podium Presentation at: 2023 Members Meeting of The Knee Society; September 7–9, 2023; Monterey, California, US. 
  55. Cochrane NH, et al.J Arthroplasty. Published online February 13, 2024
    56.  

Title

Text

Explore