header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

PATIENT-SPECIFIC INSTRUMENTATION: ADDED COST AND UNPROVEN VALUE – AFFIRMS

Current Concepts in Joint Replacement (CCJR) – Winter 2015 meeting (9–12 December).



Abstract

A recent proposed modification in surgical technique in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been the introduction of patient specific instrumentation or custom cutting guides (CCGs). With CCGs, preoperative three-dimensional imaging is used to manufacture cutting blocks specific to a patient's native anatomy, with proposed benefits including their ease of use; a decrease in operative times and instrument trays and improved cost-efficiency; the ability to preoperative plan component size, alignment, and position; and an improvement in postoperative alignment versus the use of standard instrumentation. However, to date the majority of reports have not confirmed these proposed benefits.

Prior studies focusing on cost-efficiency have shown limited benefits in terms of operating and room turnover times, which fail to offset the additional cost of preoperative imaging and fabrication of the CCGs. Furthermore, a number of reports have noted the frequent need for surgeon-directed changes and alterations in alignment intraoperatively, along with errors in the predetermined implant size. The use of CCGs has also failed to improve overall mechanical and component alignment versus standard instrumentation in the majority of investigations. Perhaps most importantly, no investigation has demonstrated CCGs to improve clinical outcomes postoperatively. Therefore, in the absence of proven clinical or radiographic improvements, the continued implementation of CCGs must be questioned.