Current data do not support routine use of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty.
meta_analysis · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 24961893.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.039.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) versus standard instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with regard to coronal and sagittal alignment, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and cost. A systematic query in search of relevant studies was performed, and the data published in these studies were extracted and aggregated. In regard to coronal alignment, PSI demonstrated improved accuracy in femorotibial angle (FTA) (P=0.0003), while standard instrumentation demonstrated improved accuracy in hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) (P=0.02). Importantly, there were no differences between treatment groups in the percentages of FTA or HKA outliers (>3 degrees from target alignment) (P=0.7). Sagittal alignment, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and cost were also similar between groups (P>0.1 for all comparisons).
Medical subject headings
- Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee
- Knee Prosthesis
- Osteoarthritis, Knee
- Surgery, Computer-Assisted
Anatomy
- knee