Results The majority of studies did not show an improvement in overall limb alignment when PSI was compared with st and ard instrumentation .
The studies demonstrated mixed results regarding the influence of PSI on operative times .
Decreased operative times were not uniformly observed , and when noted , they were found to be of minimal clinical or financial significance .
PSI did reliably reduce the number of instrument trays required for processing perioperatively .
The accuracy of the preoperative plan , generated by the PSI manufacturers , was found lacking , often leading to multiple intraoperative changes , thereby disrupting the flow of the operation and negatively impacting efficiency .
Neither of the two studies we identified provided strong evidence to support an advantage favoring the use of PSI .
Conclusions PSI for TKA has not reliably demonstrated improvement of postoperative limb or component alignment when compared with st and ard instrumentation .
Although decisive evidence exists to support that PSI requires fewer surgical trays , PSI has not clearly been shown to improve overall surgical efficiency or the cost-effectiveness of TKA .
Limited available literature does not clearly support any improvement of postoperative pain , activity , function , or ROM when PSI is compared with traditional instrumentation
Background Patient-specific cutting blocks have been touted as a more efficient and reliable means of achieving neutral mechanical alignment during TKA with the proposed downstream effect of improved clinical outcomes .
However , it is not clear to what degree published studies support these assumptions .
Questions / purpose sWe asked : ( 1 ) Do  patient-specific cutting blocks  achieve neutral mechanical alignment more reliably during TKA when compared with conventional methods ? (
2 ) Does patient-specific instrumentation ( PSI ) provide financial benefit through improved surgical efficiency ? (
3 ) Does the use of patient-specific cutting blocks translate to improved clinical results after TKA when compared with conventional instrumentation ?
Patient-specific Total Knee Arthroplasty Required Frequent Surgeon-directed Changes
Background Patient-specific instrumentation potentially improves surgical precision and decreases operative time in total knee arthroplasty ( TKA ) but there is little supporting data to confirm this presumption . Questions / purpose sWe asked whether patient-specific instrumentation would require infrequent intraoperative changes to replicate a single surgeon ’s preferences during TKA and whether patient-specific instrumentation guides would fit securely . Methods We prospect ively evaluated the plan and surgery in 60 patients treated with 66 TKAs performed with patient-specific instrumentation and recorded any changes . A subset of six postoperative radiographic changes to the femoral and tibial components ( implant size , coronal and sagittal alignment ) was analyzed to determine if surgeon intervention was beneficial . Each guide was evaluated to determine fit . We compared patient demographics and implant sizing in the patient-specific instrumentation group with a control group in which traditional instrumentation was used . Results We recorded 161 intraoperative changes in 66 knee arthroplasties ( 2.4 changes/knee ) performed with patient-specific instrumentation . The predetermined implant size was changed intraoperatively in 77 % of femurs and 53 % of tibias . We identified a subset of 95 intraoperative changes that could be radiographically evaluated to determine if our changes were an improvement or detriment to reaching goal alignment . Eighty-two of the 95 changes ( 86 % ) made by the surgeon were an improvement to the recommended alignment or size of patient-specific instrumentation . The guide did not fit securely on eight femurs ( 12 % ) and three tibias ( 5 % ) . Tourniquet time and blood loss were not improved with patient-specific instrumentation . Conclusions We caution surgeons against blind acceptance of patient-specific instrumentation technology without supportive data .Level of Evidence Level III , therapeutic study . See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence
Results The majority of studies did not show an improvement in overall limb alignment when PSI was compared with st and ard instrumentation .
The studies demonstrated mixed results regarding the influence of PSI on operative times .
Decreased operative times were not uniformly observed , and when noted , they were found to be of minimal clinical or financial significance .
PSI did reliably reduce the number of instrument trays required for processing perioperatively .
The accuracy of the preoperative plan , generated by the PSI manufacturers , was found lacking , often leading to multiple intraoperative changes , thereby disrupting the flow of the operation and negatively impacting efficiency .
Neither of the two studies we identified provided strong evidence to support an advantage favoring the use of PSI .
Conclusions PSI for TKA has not reliably demonstrated improvement of postoperative limb or component alignment when compared with st and ard instrumentation .
Although decisive evidence exists to support that PSI requires fewer surgical trays , PSI has not clearly been shown to improve overall surgical efficiency or the cost-effectiveness of TKA .
Limited available literature does not clearly support any improvement of postoperative pain , activity , function , or ROM when PSI is compared with traditional instrumentation
Background Patient-specific cutting blocks have been touted as a more efficient and reliable means of achieving neutral mechanical alignment during TKA with the proposed downstream effect of improved clinical outcomes .
However , it is not clear to what degree published studies support these assumptions .
Questions / purpose sWe asked : ( 1 ) Do  patient-specific cutting blocks  achieve neutral mechanical alignment more reliably during TKA when compared with conventional methods ? (
2 ) Does patient-specific instrumentation ( PSI ) provide financial benefit through improved surgical efficiency ? (
3 ) Does the use of patient-specific cutting blocks translate to improved clinical results after TKA when compared with conventional instrumentation ?