Literature DB >> 26733647

Patient-specific cutting blocks: Of Unproven Value.

G-C Lee1.   

Abstract

Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) uses advanced imaging of the knee (CT or MRI) to generate individualised cutting blocks aimed to make the procedure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) more accurate and efficient. However, in this era of healthcare cost consciousness, the value of new technologies needs to be critically evaluated. There have been several comparative studies looking at PSI versus standard instrumentation. Most compare PSI with conventional instrumentation in terms of alignment in the coronal plane, operative time and surgical efficiency, cost effectiveness and short-term outcomes. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have also been published. PSI has not been shown to be superior compared with conventional instrumentation in its ability to restore traditional mechanical alignment in primary TKA. Most studies show comparative efficacy and no decrease in the number of outliers in either group. In terms of operative time and efficiency, PSI tended towards decreasing operative time, saving a mean of five minutes per patient (0 to 20). Furthermore, while some cost savings could be realised with less operative time and reduced instrumentation per patient, these savings were overcome by the cost of the CT/MRI and the cutting blocks. Finally, there was no evidence that PSI positively affected clinical outcomes at two days, two months, or two years. Consequently, current evidence does not support routine use of PSI in routine primary TKA. ©2016 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PSI; Patient Specific Instruments; TKA; Total knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26733647     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36370

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  6 in total

Review 1.  Robotic technology in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Babar Kayani; Sujith Konan; Atif Ayuob; Elliot Onochie; Talal Al-Jabri; Fares S Haddad
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2019-10-01

2.  Mid-term functional outcomes of patient-specific versus conventional instrumentation total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study.

Authors:  Vikaesh Moorthy; Jerry Yongqiang Chen; Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Pak Lin Chin; Shi-Lu Chia; Ngai Nung Lo; Seng Jin Yeo
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 3.067

3.  Verification of in vivo accuracy of Trumatch™ patient-specific instrumentation in total knee replacement using pin-less computer navigation.

Authors:  Nikolai Briffa; Mohamed A Imam; Ravi Mallina; Ashraf Abdelkafy; Ajeya Adhikari
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-09-07

4.  Tumor resection at the pelvis using three-dimensional planning and patient-specific instruments: a case series.

Authors:  Thorsten Jentzsch; Lazaros Vlachopoulos; Philipp Fürnstahl; Daniel A Müller; Bruno Fuchs
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 2.754

5.  Robotic total knee arthroplasty: clinical outcomes and directions for future research.

Authors:  B Kayani; F S Haddad
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2019-11-02       Impact factor: 5.853

6.  Medial Ball and Socket Total Knee Arthroplasty in Indian Population: 5-Year Clinical Results.

Authors:  Sahil Batra; Rajesh Malhotra
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2021-10-20
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.