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
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Mar;144(3):1311-1330.
doi: 10.1007/s00402-023-05090-8. Epub 2023 Nov 18.

No clinical advantage with customized individually made implants over conventional off-the-shelf implants in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

No clinical advantage with customized individually made implants over conventional off-the-shelf implants in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abu Z Saeed et al. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024 Mar.

Erratum in

Abstract

Introduction: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be performed with either conventional off-the-shelf (OTS) or customized individually-made (CIM) implants. The evidence for CIM implants is limited and variable, and the aim of this review was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between CIM and OTS implants.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting on clinical, radiological, or alignment outcomes for CIM and OTS implants were selected. The studies were appraised using the Methodical index for non-randomized studies tool.

Results: Twenty-three studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The studies comprised 2856 CIM and 1877 OTS TKAs. Revision rate was higher with CIM (5.9%) compared to OTS (3.7%) implants [OR 1.23(95% CI 0.69-2.18)]. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) was higher in CIM (2.2%) compared to OTS (1.1%) group [OR 2.95(95% CI 0.95-9.13)] and complications rate was higher in CIM (5%) vs. OTS (4.5%) [OR 1.45(95% CI 0.53-3.96)] but neither reached statistical significance. Length of stay was significantly shorter in CIM group 2.9 days vs. 3.5 days [MD - 0.51(95% CI - 0.82 to - 0.20)]. Knee Society Score showed no difference between CIM and OTS groups for Knee 90.5 vs. 90.6 [MD - 0.27(95% CI - 4.27 to 3.73)] and Function 86.1 vs. 83.1 [MD 1.51(95% CI - 3.69 to 6.70)].

Conclusion: CIM implants in TKA have theoretical benefits over OTS prostheses. However, in this present review, CIM implants were associated with higher revisions, MUA, and overall complication rates. There was no difference in outcome score and CIM implants did not improve overall target alignment; however, more CIM TKAs were found to be in the HKA target zone compared to OTS TKAs. The findings of this review do not support the general utilization of CIM over OTS implants in TKA.

Keywords: Customized individually made implants; Implant alignment; Off-the shelf implants; Total knee arthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Price AJ, Alvand A, Troelsen A et al (2018) Knee replacement. Lancet Lond Engl 392:1672–1682. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32344-4 - DOI
    1. Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Gregg PJ (2007) The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89-B:893–900. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B7.19091 - DOI
    1. Baker PN, Rushton S, Jameson SS et al (2013) Patient satisfaction with total knee replacement cannot be predicted from pre-operative variables alone. Bone Jt J 95-B:1359–1365. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B10.32281 - DOI
    1. Gunaratne R, Pratt DN, Banda J et al (2017) Patient dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 32:3854–3860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.07.021 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T et al (2000) Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 71:262–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/000164700317411852 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources