Does Patient-Specific Instrumentations Improve Short-Term Functional Outcomes After Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Role of 3D-Printed Patient-Specific Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Literature Review

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is currently one of the most common orthopedic surgeries due to the ever-increasing average life expectancy. The constant need for effective and accurate techniques was contributed to the development of three-dimensional (3D) printing in that field, especially for patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) and custom-made implants fabrication. PSI may offer numerous benefits, such as resection accuracy, mechanical axis alignment, cost-effectiveness, and time economy. Nonetheless, the results of existing studies are controversial. For this purpose, a review article of the published articles was conducted to summarize the role of 3D-printed PSI in TKA.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of VISIONAIRE patient-specific instrumentation with conventional instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Malalignment and resulting complications are major challenges in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) which patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) is proposed to alleviate. Previous PSI meta-analyses of TKA outcomes typically do not differentiate between PSI systems and assess relatively few outcomes, so the value of their findings is limited. VISIONAIRE™ cutting guides (Smith + Nephew Inc., Memphis, TN, USA) is a PSI system based on preoperative magnetic resonance and X-ray imaging. A systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis, focussed specifically on VISIONAIRE, were conducted to assess TKA accuracy, intraoperative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes, compared with conventional instrumentation (CI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SLR was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar databases to identify relevant studies published until March 2022. Depending on statistical heterogeneity, meta-analyses were performed for outcome measures with fixed effect (I2 < 50%) or random-effects models (I2 ≥ 50%). Dichotomous outcomes were reported as odds ratios and continuous outcomes were reported as mean differences. Descriptive analyses were performed for outcomes not amenable to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Outcomes for VISIONAIRE versus CI were reported in 25 studies. Compared with CI, VISIONAIRE reduced odds of mechanical outliers by 40% (p < 0.0001), with no statistically significant differences in odds of overall coronal, sagittal, or rotational plane component outliers. VISIONAIRE improved surgical efficiency (operating room, turnover, and tourniquet times reduced by 7.3% (p = 0.02), 42% (p = 0.022), and 15.9% (p = 0.01), respectively), lowering the odds of blood transfusion by 53% (p = 0.01) and shortening patients' hospital stays (11.1% reduction; p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between groups in incidence of postoperative complications and (descriptively analyzed) return-to-function outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Options for PSI in TKA differ substantially, and it is important to assess the outcomes of individual systems. The current findings suggest that VISIONAIRE guides can lead to improved alignment accuracy and surgical efficiency compared with CI, without compromising postoperative safety and return-to-function outcomes.

Does the use of patient-specific instrumentation improve resource use in the operating room and outcome after total knee arthroplasty?–A multicenter study

Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been introduced to reduce instruments and surgical time and to improve implant alignment. The aim of this study was to compare TKA with patient-specific and conventional instrumentation with regard to the use of resources in the operating room (OR), alignment and patient-reported outcome. A total of 139 TKA with PSI or conventional instrumentation were included in three centers. Economic variables of the surgery (number of instrument trays, setup and cut-sew-time), radiological alignment and patient reported outcomes (VAS Pain Scale, Oxford Knee Score, EQ-5D) were assessed after 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months. There was a significant reduction of instrument trays and of time in the OR in the PSI group. The reduction varied between the centers. With strict reorganization, more than 50% of the instrument trays could be reduced while using PSI. There were no significant differences in cut-sew-time, implant position, leg axis, pain and function. The use of PSI was associated with significantly less OR resources. However, the savings did not compensate the costs for this technology.

Minimum 5-Year Outcomes of a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Control Trial Assessing Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Patient-Specific Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) was developed to produce more accurate alignment of components and consequently improve clinical outcomes when used in total knee arthroplasty. We compare radiological accuracy and clinical outcomes at a minimum of 5-year follow-up between patients randomized to undergo total knee arthroplasty performed using PSI or traditional cutting block techniques.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized control trial included patients blinded to the technique 1used. Outcome measures were coronal alignment measured radiologically, Euroqol-5D, Oxford knee score, and International Knee Society Score measured at 1- and 5-year follow-up.

RESULTS

At a minimum 5-year follow-up, there were 38 knees in the PSI group and 39 in the conventional instrumentation group for analysis. Baseline demographics and clinical outcome scores were matched between groups. Overall, there was no significant difference in the coronal femoral angle (P = .59), coronal tibial angle (P = .37), tibiofemoral angle (P = .99), sagittal femoral angle (P = .34), or the posterior tibia slope (P = .12) between knees implanted using PSI and those implanted with traditional cutting blocks. On the measurement of coronal alignment, intraobserver reliability tests demonstrated substantial agreement (k = 0.64). Clinical outcomes at both 1-year and 5-year follow-up demonstrated statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in scores from baseline in both groups, but no difference could be detected between the Euroqol-5D (P = .78), Oxford knee score (P = .24), or International Knee Society Score (P = .86) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown no additional benefit to PSI in terms of improved alignment or functional outcomes at minimum 5-year follow-up over traditional techniques.

Patient-specific instrumentation makes sense in total knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery was initially developed to increase accuracy. The potential PSI benefits have expanded in the last decade, and other advantages have been published. However, different authors are critical of PSI and argue that the advantages are not such and do not compensate for the extra cost. This article aims to describe the recently published advantages and disadvantages of PSI.

AREAS COVERED

Narrative description of the latest publications related to PSI in accuracy, clinical and functional outcomes, operative time, efficiency, and other benefits.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

We have published high accuracy of the system, with a not clinically relevant loss of accuracy, significantly higher precision with PSI than with conventional instruments, and a high percentage of cases in the optimal range and similar to that obtained with computer-assisted navigation, greater imprecision for tibial slope, a significant blood loss reduction, and time consumption, an acceptable and non-significant increase in the cost per procedure and no difference in complications during hospital admission and at 90 days. We think that PSI will not follow the Scott Parabola and that it will continue to be a valuable type of device in some instances of TKA surgery.

Patientenspezifische Instrumentierung und Totalendoprothesen am Knie

Hintergrund

Die patientenspezifische Instrumentierung (PSI) ist eine vielversprechende neue Technologie in der orthopädischen Chirurgie, die das Ziel verfolgt, die Implantationstechnik der Knietotalendoprothese (Knie-TEP) im Vergleich zur konventionellen Instrumentierung zu vereinfachen und präziser zu machen. Ziel dieses Artikels ist es, Vorteile und Grenzen der PSI für die primäre Knie-TEP zu beschreiben.

Material und Methoden

Es erfolgte eine umfassende Literaturrecherche zum Thema PSI in der Knieprothetik hinsichtlich Evidenz für Planung, Präzision, klinische Ergebnisse, intraoperative Parameter sowie Kosten und Effizienz.

Ergebnisse

Die dreidimensionale Computertomographie (CT) weist in der präoperativen Planung der Knie-TEP eine höhere Genauigkeit auf als 2‑D-Röntgenaufnahmen. Die meisten Arbeiten postulierten keine signifikanten Effekte zugunsten der Genauigkeit der PSI gegenüber der Standard-Knie-TEP. Aber sie berichteten auch nicht, dass die Genauigkeit mit PSI schlechter sei. Hinsichtlich des klinischen Outcomes gibt es genügend Konsens unter den veröffentlichten Studien, um festzuhalten, dass es kurz- und mittelfristig keinen Unterschied zwischen Patienten gibt, die mit PSI oder konventioneller Technik operiert wurden. Eine große Metaanalyse konnte weder eine kürzere Operationszeit noch eine geringere Komplikationsrate für die PSI-Knie-TEP feststellen. Lediglich der intraoperative Blutverlust erwies sich als niedriger im Vergleich zur Standardtechnik, jedoch mit unveränderter Transfusionsrate. Kosteneffektivitätsanalysen lassen schlussfolgern, dass die PSI aktuell (noch) nicht kosteneffektiv ist.

Diskussion

Obwohl die aktuell vorliegenden Studienergebnisse die PSI-Technologie hinsichtlich vieler messbaren Kriterien nicht eindeutig von der Standardtechnik abheben, zeigt die PSI viele theoretische und praktische Vorteile.

Contact kinematics of patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The goal was to evaluate the joint contact kinematics of total knee arthroplasties implanted using patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) compared to conventional instrumentation (CI). We hypothesized that use of PSI would not significantly alter contact kinematics.

METHODS

The study was a prospective randomized controlled trial, with equal allocation of fifty patients to PSI and CI groups. At two years post-operation, patients underwent weight-bearing stereo X-ray examinations at 0°, 20°, 40°, 60°, 80°, and 100° of flexion. The shortest tibiofemoral distance on each condyle determined the contact location. Magnitude of the shortest distance was measured and condylar separation was analyzed using thresholds of 0.5 and 0.75 mm. Kinematic measurements derived from the shortest distance included anteroposterior (AP) translation, excursion, axial rotation, and paradoxical anterior motion. Pivot position and cam/post contact were also investigated.

RESULTS

There were no differences (p > 0.05) in medial and lateral AP contact locations, excursions, and magnitude of anterior motion, or in axial rotation, pivot patterns, frequency of cam/post engagement, frequency of medial anterior motion, and condylar separation at a 0.75 mm threshold. Significant differences were found in frequency of lateral anterior motion (p = 0.048) and condylar separation at a 0.5 mm threshold (p = 0.010). Both groups displayed typical kinematics for a fixed-bearing posterior-stabilized implant.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no major differences in knee kinematics between PSI and CI groups, which suggest that PSI does not provide a significant kinematic advantage over conventional instruments.

Patient-Specific or Conventional Instrumentations: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

To conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare knee arthroplasty with patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) with the conventional instrumentation (CI).

Methods

RCTs were selected in PubMed and Embase from 2012 to 2018. Key data extracted included malalignment of mechanical axis, blood loss, surgical time, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Knee Society Score (KSS), length of stay, and complications. Subgroup analysis was also performed regarding different PSI systems and different image processing methods.

Results

29 RCTs with 2487 knees were eligible for the meta-analysis. Results showed that PSI did not improve the alignment of the mechanical axis compared with CI, but MRI-based PSI and Visionaire-specific PSI decrease the risk of malalignment significantly (P = 0.04 and P = 0.04 and P = 0.04 and P = 0.04 and P = 0.04 and

Conclusion

PSI reduced the blood loss and improved KSS. MRI-based PSI reduced operative time and risk of malalignment of mechanical axis compared with CT-based PSI. Moreover, Visionaire-specific PSI achieves better alignment result of the mechanical axis than other systems.

Total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instrumentation for osteoarthritis of the knee: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instrumentation (TKA-PSI), which are disposable cutting block guides generated to fit each patient's 3-dimensional knee anatomy, has been developed to treat patients with end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee. Surrogate markers such as radiographic malalignment have been well investigated, however, patient-important outcomes are not well examined to elucidate the efficacy of TKA-PSI. The aim of this review is to determine if TKA-PSI improves patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), surgery time, blood loss, transfusion and complications (e.g. surgical site infection, deep venous thrombosis, and revision TKA).

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ongoing clinical trials. For PROMs, surgery time, blood loss, and transfusion rate, we included randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing TKA-PSI and standard TKA to treat osteoarthritis of the knee. For complications, we also included non-randomized comparative studies (non-RCT).

RESULTS

This review includes 38 studies, 24 of which were RCT and 14 of which were non-RCT. These included a total of 3487 patients. The predominant population in the included studies highly reflected the general population, with 62% being female, aged over 60 and having end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee. TKA-PSI did not improve PROMs as compared to standard TKA for less than 1-year (mean difference 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.92-0.97 in the Oxford knee score, mean 3-month follow-up) and for 1-year or more (mean difference 0.25, 95%CI - 4.39-4.89 in the WOMAC score, mean 29-month follow-up). TKA-PSI did not reduce surgery time (mean difference - 3.09 min, 95%CI -6.73-0.55). TKA-PSI decreased blood loss with a small effect size corresponding to a 0.4 g/dl hemoglobin decrease (95%CI 0.18-0.88), but did not decrease transfusion rate (risk difference - 0.04, 95%CI -0.09-0.01). TKA-PSI did not reduce complication rates (risk difference 0.00, 95%CI - 0.01-0.01 in the composite outcome).

CONCLUSIONS

TKA-PSI does not improve patient-reported outcome measures, surgery time, and complication rates as compared to standard TKA. TKA-PSI decreases blood loss with a small effect, which is not enough to reduce transfusion rate.

A Retrospective Study Comparing a Patient-specific Design Total Knee Arthroplasty With an Off-the-Shelf Design: Unexpected Catastrophic Failure Seen in the Early Patient-specific Design

Patient-specific design (PSD) total knee arthroplasty implants are marketed to restore neutral mechanical-axis alignment (MAA) and provide better anatomic fit compared with standard off-the-shelf (OTS) total knee arthroplasty designs. The purpose was to compare the Knee Society scores, radiographic outcomes, and complications of PSD and OTS implants.

A randomized controlled trial of tibial component migration with kinematic alignment using patient-specific instrumentation versus mechanical alignment using computer-assisted surgery in total knee arthroplasty

AIMS

Patient-specific instrumentation of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a technique permitting the targeting of individual kinematic alignment, but deviation from a neutral mechanical axis may have implications on implant fixation and therefore survivorship. The primary objective of this randomized controlled study was to compare the fixation of tibial components implanted with patient-specific instrumentation targeting kinematic alignment (KA+PSI) versus components placed using computer-assisted surgery targeting neutral mechanical alignment (MA+CAS). Tibial component migration measured by radiostereometric analysis was the primary outcome measure (compared longitudinally between groups and to published acceptable thresholds). Secondary outcome measures were inducible displacement after one year and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) over two years. The secondary objective was to assess the relationship between alignment and both tibial component migration and inducible displacement.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 47 patients due to undergo TKA were randomized to KA+PSI (n = 24) or MA+CAS (n = 23). In the KA+PSI group, there were 16 female and eight male patients with a mean age of 64 years (sd 8). In the MA+CAS group, there were 17 female and six male patients with a mean age of 63 years (sd 7). Surgery was performed using cemented, cruciate-retaining Triathlon total knees with patellar resurfacing, and patients were followed up for two years. The effect of alignment on tibial component migration and inducible displacement was analyzed irrespective of study group.

RESULTS

There was no difference over two years in longitudinal migration of the tibial component between the KA+PSI and MA+CAS groups (reaching median maximum total point motion migration at two years of 0.40 mm for the KA+PSI group and 0.37 mm for the MA+CAS group, p = 0.82; p = 0.68 adjusted for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) for all follow-ups). Both groups had mean migrations below acceptable thresholds. There was no difference in inducible displacement (p = 0.34) or PROMS (p = 0.61 for the Oxford Knee Score) between groups. There was no correlation between alignment and tibial component migration or alignment and inducible displacement. These findings support non-neutral alignment as a viable option with this component, with no evidence that it compromises fixation.

CONCLUSION

Kinematic alignment using patient-specific instrumentation in TKA was associated with acceptable tibial component migration, indicating stable fixation. These results are supportive of future investigations of kinematic alignment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:929-940.

Patient-Specific Instrumentation Does Not Affect Rotational Alignment of the Femoral Component and Perioperative Blood Loss in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Proposed aims of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are to improve accuracy of component alignment, while reducing blood loss and surgical time. The primary goal of this prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial is to verify whether PSI improves the rotational alignment of the femoral component in comparison to conventionally implanted TKA.

METHODS

One-hundred thirty-three consecutive patients were assessed for eligibility. Block randomization was performed to allocated patients in the treatment (PSI) or control group. During hospital stay, surgical times were recorded, and total blood volume loss and estimated red blood cell were calculated. Two months after surgery, a computed tomography of the knee was obtained to measure femoral component rotation to the transepicondylar axis and tibial component slope.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were enrolled. PSI did neither result in a significant improvement in femoral component rotation nor result in a reduction of outliers, as compared with conventional instrumentation. No significant improvement in terms of tibial slope, blood loss, total surgical time, and ischemia time could be identified. The number of tibial recuts required in the PSI group was significantly higher than in the control group (P = .0003).

CONCLUSION

PSI does not improve the accuracy of femoral component rotation in TKA in comparison to conventional instrumentation. Moreover, PSI did not appear to influence any of the other variables investigated as secondary goals by this study. The results of this study do not support its routine use during standard TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, randomized, controlled trial.

Patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most commonly performed orthopedic procedures. During the past decade, patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) has been commercially introduced in order to simplify and make TKA surgery more effective, precise and efficient than conventional mechanical instrumentation (CI) and computer-assisted surgery (CAS). Nevertheless, there are critical arguments against PSI for routine use. The aim of the current manuscript is to describe advantages and limitations of PSI for primary TKA.

AREAS COVERED

By means of a description of the available literature different aspects are discussed (accuracy, clinical and functional outcomes, operative time, blood loss, efficiency and costs).

EXPERT OPINION

Most publications do not claim a significant increase in PSI accuracy over CI, but they also do not postulate PSIs accuracy is worse either. Regarding clinical aspects, PSI did not appear to give any advantage over standard techniques although, equally, it did not appear to show any disadvantages. PSI seems to reduce operative time, could reduce perioperative blood loss and provides logistical benefits in the operation room. Further studies will be required to more thoroughly assess all the advantages and disadvantages of this promising technology as an alternative to CI and CAS.

A randomized controlled trial investigating the value of patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty in the Canadian healthcare system

Aims

The purpose of the present study was to compare patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) and conventional surgical instrumentation (CSI) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in terms of early implant migration, alignment, surgical resources, patient outcomes, and costs.

Patients and Methods

The study was a prospective, randomized controlled trial of 50 patients undergoing TKA. There were 25 patients in each of the PSI and CSI groups. There were 12 male patients in the PSI group and seven male patients in the CSI group. The patients had a mean age of 69.0 years (sd 8.4) in the PSI group and 69.4 years (sd 8.4) in the CSI group. All patients received the same TKA implant. Intraoperative surgical resources and any surgical waste generated were recorded. Patients underwent radiostereometric analysis (RSA) studies to measure femoral and tibial component migration over two years. Outcome measures were recorded pre- and postoperatively. Overall costs were calculated for each group.

Results

There were no differences (p > 0.05) in any measurement of migration at two years for either the tibial or femoral components. Movement between one and two years was < 0.2 mm, indicating stable fixation. There were no differences in coronal or sagittal alignment between the two groups. The PSI group took a mean 6.1 minutes longer (p = 0.04) and used a mean 3.4 less trays (p < 0.0001). Total waste generated was similar (10 kg) between the two groups. The PSI group cost a mean CAD$1787 more per case (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

RSA criteria suggest that both groups will have revision rates of approximately 3% at five years. The advantages of PSI were minimal or absent for surgical resources used and waste eliminated, and for meeting target alignment, yet had significantly greater costs. Therefore, we conclude that PSI may not offer any advantage over CSI for routine primary TKA cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:565–572.

Impact of Image-Derived Instrumentation on Total Knee Arthroplasty Revision Rates: An Analysis of 83,823 Procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

Computer navigation and image-derived instrumentation (IDI) are technology-based methods developed to improve outcomes and potentially reduce revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). IDI refers to the use of manufactured, patient-specific surgical jigs. Conflicting reports exist on IDI-associated improvements in outcomes. The primary aim of the current study was to compare the rates of revision among TKA cases in which components were initially implanted with use of IDI, computer navigation, or neither of these methods ("other" TKA). The secondary aim was to determine whether the outcomes of IDI differed for specific subgroups.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) for the 3 TKA groups: IDI, computer-navigated, and other TKA. The study period was from the first IDI procedure recorded by the AOANJRR (April 2010) to December 31, 2016. The analysis was restricted to primary TKA cases undertaken for osteoarthritis and involving patellar resurfacing and the use of a cross-linked polyethylene insert. Subanalyses were performed to evaluate the effects of age, sex, implantation method, IDI manufacturer, prosthetic design, and prosthesis type on the rates of revision. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship described the time to first revision. Hazard ratios (HRs, Cox proportional hazards models) with adjustment for age and sex were used to compare revision rates.

RESULTS

IDI was used in 5,486 primary TKA procedures. There was no significant difference among the groups in the cumulative percent revision (CPR) at 5 years: 3.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4% to 4.6%) for IDI, 2.4% (95% CI, 2.2% to 2.7%) for the computer-navigated group, and 2.5% (95% CI, 2.3% to 2.7%) for other TKA. Posterior-stabilized TKA with use of the IDI method had a significantly higher rate of revision at >3 months (HR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.02 to 2.04]; p = 0.036), as did IDI TKA in the ≤65-year-old patient cohort (HR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.10 to 2.09]; p = 0.010), compared with computer-navigated TKA. Patellar revision was significantly more likely in the IDI group.

CONCLUSIONS

IDI TKA demonstrated no overall difference in early to mid-term revision rates compared with standard implantation methods. However, elevated rates of revision were seen with posterior-stabilized TKA, in patients ≤65 years of age, and for patellar revision, meaning that this method should be used with some caution and requires further study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Alignment and Balance Methods in Total Knee Arthroplasty

Total knee arthroplasty is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic surgical procedures in the United States. Primary concepts in the surgical technique include restoring limb alignment and soft-tissue balance about the knee. Currently, traditional mechanical alignment concepts that focus on restoring neutral limb alignment have been challenged by the principle of kinematic alignment. In addition to these recent philosophical challenges, new technologies have been introduced to help the surgeon more accurately achieve optimal limb alignment and soft-tissue balance.

Use of Patient-Specific Instrumentation (PSI) for glenoid component positioning in shoulder arthroplasty. A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (TSA) anatomical, reverse or both is an increasingly popular procedure but the glenoid component is still a weak element, accounting for 30-50% of mechanical complications and contributing to the revision burden. Component mal-positioning is one of the main aetiological factors in glenoid failure and thus Patient-Specific Instrumentation (PSI) has been introduced in an effort to optimise implant placement. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to compare the success of PSI and Standard Instrumentation (STDI) methods in reproducing pre-operative surgical planning of glenoid component positioning.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search (restricted to English language) was conducted in November 2017 on MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov. Using the search terms "Patient-Specific Instrumentation (PSI)", "custom guide", "shoulder", "glenoid" and "arthroplasty", 42 studies were identified. The main exclusion criteria were: no CT-scan analysis results; studies done on plastic bone; and use of a reusable or generic guide. Eligible studies evaluated final deviations from the planning for version, inclination, entry point and rotation. Reviewers worked independently to extract data and assess the risk of bias on the same studies.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 12 studies, comprising 227 participants (seven studies on 103 humans and five studies on 124 cadaveric specimens). Heterogeneity was moderate or high for all parameters. Deviations from the pre-operative planning for version (p<0.01), inclination (p<0.01) and entry point (p = 0.02) were significantly lower with the PSI than with the STDI, but not for rotation (p = 0.49). Accuracy (deviation from planning) with PSI was about 1.88° to 4.96°, depending on the parameter. The number of component outliers (>10° of deviation or 4mm) were significantly higher with STDI than with PSI (68.6% vs 15.3% (p = 0.01)).

CONCLUSION

This review supports the idea that PSI enhances glenoid component positioning, especially a decrease in the number of outliers. However, the findings are not definitive and further validation is required. It should be noted that no randomised clinical studies are available to confirm long-term outcomes.

Functional Outcomes and Accuracy of Patient-Specific Instruments for Total Knee Arthroplasty

Background. Patient-specific instruments (PSIs) were developed to improve mechanical axis alignment for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) as neutral alignment (180°) is a predictor of long-term success. This study examines alignment accuracy and functional outcomes of PSI as compared with standard instruments (SIs). Methods. We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of TKA procedures using PSI. A total of 85 PSI procedures were identified, and these were compared with a matched cohort of 85 TKAs using SI. Intraoperative decision-making, estimated blood loss, efficiency, Knee Society Scores, and postoperative radiographs were evaluated. Results. One hundred and seventy patients with comparable patient demographics were reviewed. Eighty-one percent of the PSI procedures were within target (180 ± 3°) mechanical alignment, while the SI group had 70% of cases within the target plane ( P = .132). Mean target alignment (2.0° PSI vs 2.2° SI, P = .477) was similar between groups. Twenty-seven percent of patients in the PSI group had surgeon-directed intraoperative recuts to improve the perceived coronal alignment. The change in hematocrit was reduced in the PSI group (8.89 vs 7.21, P = .000). Procedure time and total operating room time were equivalent. Knee Society Scores did not differ between groups at 6 months or at 1 year. Conclusion. Patient-specific instrumentation decreased change in hematocrit, though coronal alignment and efficiency were equivalent between groups. Surgeons must evaluate cuts intraoperatively to confirm alignment. Functional outcomes are equivalent for PSI and SI groups.

Stability and alignment do not improve by using patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

The primary aim of the study was to examine stability and alignment after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) and conventional instrumentation (CI). The hypothesis was that stability and alignment would be better using PSI than CI, 12 months postoperatively. The secondary aim included the evaluation of clinical outcomes after TKA.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 42 patients with knee osteoarthritis received a Genesis II PS prosthesis with either PSI or CI. Patients visited the hospital preoperatively and postoperatively after 6 weeks and 3 and 12 months. To evaluate stability, varus-valgus laxity was determined in extension and flexion using stress radiographs 12 months postoperatively. Three months postoperatively, a long-leg radiograph and CT scan were obtained to measure hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment and component rotation. Furthermore, frontal and sagittal alignment of the components, the Knee Society Score, VAS Pain, VAS Satisfaction, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome score, Patella score (Kujala), University of California Los Angeles activity score, anterior-posterior laxity, (serious) adverse device-related events, and intraoperative complications were reported. The clinical outcomes were compared using independent t tests or non-parametric alternatives, and repeated measurements ANOVA with a significance level of p < 0.05.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding stability, HKA angle, and rotational alignment. In four patients, the PSI did not fit correctly on the tibia and/or femur requiring intraoperative modifications. Both groups improved significantly over time on all clinical outcomes, with no significant differences between the groups 12 months postoperatively. The PSI group showed less tibial slope than the patients in the CI group [PSI 2.6° versus CI 4.8° (p = 0.02)]. Finally, the PSI group more frequently received a thinner insert size than the CI group (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients operated with PSI did not differ from CI in terms of stability and alignment. However, in the PSI group ligament releases were more often required intraoperatively. Furthermore, the two methods did not show different clinical results. It seems that the preoperative planning for the PSI facilitates more conservative bone cuts than CI, but whether this is clinically relevant should be investigated. Since PSI is more expensive and time consuming than CI, and does not outperform CI with regard to clinical results, we recommend to use CI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Accelerometer-Based and Computer-Assisted Navigation in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Reduction in Mechanical Axis Outliers Does Not Lead to Improvement in Functional Outcomes or Quality of Life When Compared to Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Accelerometer-based navigation (ABN) is a novel navigation system that attempts to combine the accuracy of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) with the familiarity of conventional instrumentation (CON). No studies have compared the clinical outcomes of this new technology with existing techniques to date.

METHODS

From July 2013 to April 2014, 152 consecutive patients (152 knees) underwent total knee arthroplasty using ABN (n = 38), CAS (n = 38), or CON (n = 76). We prospectively matched the groups in a 1:1:2 ratio for age, gender, body mass index, preoperative range of motion, Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, Short-Form 36 Physical and Mental Component Scores, and preoperative deformity using preoperative data in isolation, thus controlling for potential confounding factors. All patients were prospectively followed for 2 years.

RESULTS

The ABN and CAS groups had a significantly improved mean mechanical axis (P = .018), femoral (P = .050) and tibial component alignment (P = .008) compared to the CON group. There were significantly less mechanical axis outliers in the ABN and CAS groups (P = .034). The duration of surgery for the ABN group (83.9 ± 21 min) was significantly shorter than the CAS group (101 ± 11 min; P < .001) but similar to the CON group (76.6 ± 17 min; P = .131). There was no significant difference in functional outcomes, quality of life measures or satisfaction rates between the 3 groups at 2 years (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Although bone cuts were as accurate as CAS and operation time was similar to CON, the use of ABN failed to demonstrate any advantages in clinical outcomes following total knee arthroplasty at 2 years follow-up.

An Approach to Developing Customized Total Knee Replacement Implants

Total knee replacement (TKR) has been performed for patients with end-stage knee joint arthritis to relieve pain and gain functions. Most knee replacement patients can gain satisfactory knee functions; however, the range of motion of the implanted knee is variable. There are many designs of TKR implants; it has been suggested by some researchers that customized implants could offer a better option for patients. Currently, the 3-dimensional knee model of a patient can be created from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) data using image processing techniques. The knee models can be used for patient-specific implant design, biomechanical analysis, and creating bone cutting guide blocks. Researchers have developed patient-specific musculoskeletal lower limb model with total knee replacement, and the models can be used to predict muscle forces, joint forces on knee condyles, and wear of tibial polyethylene insert. These available techniques make it feasible to create customized implants for individual patients. Methods and a workflow of creating a customized total knee replacement implant for improving TKR kinematics and functions are discussed and presented in this paper.