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
Review
. 2023 Feb 27;13(3):426.
doi: 10.3390/jpm13030426.

Patient Specific Instruments and Patient Individual Implants-A Narrative Review

Christian Benignus  1 , Peter Buschner  2 , Malin Kristin Meier  3 , Frauke Wilken  2 , Johannes Rieger  2 , Johannes Beckmann  2
Affiliations
Review

Patient Specific Instruments and Patient Individual Implants-A Narrative Review

Christian Benignus et al. J Pers Med. .

Abstract

Joint arthroplasties are one of the most frequently performed standard operations worldwide. Patient individual instruments and patient individual implants represent an innovation that must prove its usefulness in further studies. However, promising results are emerging. Those implants seem to be a benefit especially in revision situations. Most experience is available in the field of knee and hip arthroplasty. Patient-specific instruments for the shoulder and upper ankle are much less common. Patient individual implants combine individual cutting blocks and implants, while patient individual instruments solely use individual cutting blocks in combination with off-the-shelf implants. This review summarizes the current data regarding the implantation of individual implants and the use of individual instruments.

Keywords: Knee arthroplasty; custom-made implants; high-tibial osteotomy; hip arthroplasty; kinematic alignment; patient-specific implants; patient-specific instrumentation; shoulder arthroplasty; total ankle arthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Haaker R.G., Tiedjen K., Ottersbach A., Rubenthaler F., Stockheim M., Stiehl J.B. Comparison of conventional versus computer-navigated acetabular component insertion. J. Arthroplast. 2007;22:151–159. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.10.018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Victor J., Van Doninck D., Labey L., Innocenti B., Parizel P.M., Bellemans J. How precise can bony landmarks be determined on a CT scan of the knee? Knee. 2009;16:358–365. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.01.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Haaker R. Evolution of total knee arthroplasty. From robotics and navigation to patient-specific instruments. Orthopade. 2016;45:280–285. doi: 10.1007/s00132-016-3238-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ibrahim M.S., Khan M.A., Nizam I., Haddad F.S. Peri-operative interventions producing better functional outcomes and enhanced recovery following total hip and knee arthroplasty: An evidence-based review. BMC Med. 2013;11:37. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-37. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stronach B.M., Pelt C.E., Erickson J.A., Peters C.L. Patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty provides no improvement in component alignment. J. Arthroplast. 2014;29:1705–1708. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.04.025. - DOI - PubMed