Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jun;7(2):125-30.
doi: 10.1007/s12178-014-9214-2.

Patient specific implants: scope for the future

Rajesh N Maniar  1 , Tushar Singhi
Affiliations

Patient specific implants: scope for the future

Rajesh N Maniar et al. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2014 Jun.

Abstract

"Patient Specific" technology introduced in last 5 years, slowly gained popularity but has currently plateaued. We have a number of studies on patient specific instruments where they have been compared with conventional jigs in total knee arthroplasty and reported to have no clear additional benefits. This review discusses their intraoperative and postoperative advantages/disadvantages and cost effectiveness and provides a synopsis in light of current literature. Patient specific implants are not freely available yet, and there is no scientific literature reporting on their use in clinical practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CT scan images of 2 patients who underwent TKA using PSI (TruMatch Personalised Solutions, Depuy Synthes, Warsaw Indiana) showing accurate rotational placement of femoral components parallel with the epicondylar axis. a, 58-year-old male patient post R TKA. b, 74- year-old female patient post R TKA
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Noble WJ, Moore CA, Ning L. The value of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:153–6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.07.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barrett W, Hoeffel D, Dalury D, Bohannon Mason J., Murphy J, Himden S. In-vivo alignment comparing patient specific instrumentation with both conventional and computer assisted surgery (CAS) instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013. Available at: doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.06.029. - PubMed
    1. Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Ruh EL, Williams BM, Foreman K, Ford AD, et al. Are patient-specific cutting blocks cost-effective for total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:889–94. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2221-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stronach BM, Pelt CE, Erickson J, Peters CL. Patient-specific total knee arthroplasty required frequent surgeon-directed changes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:169–74. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2573-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hamilton GW, Parks NL, Saxena A. Patient-specific instrumentation does not shorten surgical time: a prospective, randomized trial. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(96). A prospective randomized study (level 1 study) of the comparison of 26 PSI and 26 conventional TKA; where the time period of 15 surgical steps was compared between the groups. This comparison of time, required for surgical steps, is the most detailed of all the studies. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources