title: Is TKA using patient-specific instruments comparable to conventional TKA? A randomized controlled study of one system.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Patient-specific CT-based instrumentation may reduce implant malpositioning and improve alignment in TKA. However, it is not known whether this innovation is an advance that benefits patients.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  We evaluated (1) the precision of patient-specific TKA by comparing the incidence of outliers in postoperative alignment between TKAs using patient-specific instruments and TKAs using conventional instruments, and (2) the reliability of patient-specific instruments by intraoperatively investigating whether the surgery could be completed with patient-specific instruments alone.
  
  
  METHODS
  In this randomized controlled trial, we compared patient-specific TKA instruments from one manufacturer (n = 50) with conventional TKA instruments (n = 50). Postoperative hip-knee-ankle angles, femoral component rotation, and coronal and sagittal alignments of each component were measured. The validity of the patient-specific instrument was examined using cross-checking procedures with conventional instruments during the surgeries. When the procedure could not be completed accurately with patient-specific instruments, the procedure was converted to TKA using conventional instruments, and the frequency of this occurrence was tallied.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Outliers in the hip-knee-ankle angle were comparable between groups (12% in the patient-specific instrument group and 10% in the conventional instrument group). Other parameters such as sagittal alignment and femoral component rotation did not differ in terms of outliers. Patient-specific guides were abandoned in eight knees (16%) during the surgery because of malrotation of the femoral components and decreased slope of the tibia.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Accuracy was comparable between TKAs done with patient-specific instruments and those done with conventional instruments. However, the patient-specific instrument procedures had to be aborted frequently, incurring expenses that did not benefit patients.
authors.affiliation: Joint Reconstruction Center, Seoul NOW Hospital, Kyungki-Do, Korea.
authors.forename: Yoon Whan
authors.initials: YW
authors.lastname: Roh
authors.forename: Tae Woo
authors.initials: TW
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Sahnghoon
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: Sang Cheol
authors.initials: SC
authors.lastname: Seong
authors.forename: Myung Chul
authors.initials: MC
authors.lastname: Lee
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D019645:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007719:Knee Joint / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D007720:Knee Prosthesis; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D020370:Osteoarthritis, Knee / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D011184:Postoperative Period; D011859:Radiography; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D025321:Surgery, Computer-Assisted; D016896:Treatment Outcome
references.citation: Orthopedics. 2008 Sep;31(9):927-30
references.pmid: 18814618
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Dec;(309):136-45
references.pmid: 7994952
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Jul;86(5):682-7
references.pmid: 15274263
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Sep;(354):49-56
references.pmid: 9755763
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 2008 Jan;23(1):26-9
references.pmid: 18165024
references.citation: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Sep;19(9):1496-503
references.pmid: 21448662
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Jan;468(1):102-7
references.pmid: 19789934
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 2007 Dec;22(8):1097-106
references.pmid: 18078876
references.citation: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Mar;18(3):381-7
references.pmid: 19924399
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Jan;(226):49-64
references.pmid: 3335107
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Nov;87(11):1480-2
references.pmid: 16260662
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Mar;471(3):1000-7
references.pmid: 22996362
references.citation: Instr Course Lect. 2010;59:109-17
references.pmid: 20415374
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Nov;(380):72-9
references.pmid: 11064975
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Aug 3;93(15):1377-84
references.pmid: 21915542
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991 Sep;73(5):709-14
references.pmid: 1894655
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Jun;466(6):1499-502
references.pmid: 18264838
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Jul;(232):168-73
references.pmid: 3383484
references.citation: Orthopedics. 2012 Feb 17;35(2):e160-9
references.pmid: 22310400
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Jan;471(1):169-74
references.pmid: 22956239
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Feb;89(2):261-9
references.pmid: 17272438
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Mar;470(3):895-902
references.pmid: 22183477
references.citation: Orthopedics. 2008 Sep;31(9):857-63
references.pmid: 18814593
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jan;472(1):263-71
references.pmid: 23616267
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Mar;444:184-92
references.pmid: 16446589
references.citation: Bone Joint J. 2013 Mar;95-B(3):354-9
references.pmid: 23450020
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jan;470(1):99-107
references.pmid: 21809150
references.citation: Int Orthop. 2009 Dec;33(6):1571-5
references.pmid: 19099305
references.citation: Orthopedics. 2004 May;27(5):476-80
references.pmid: 15181942