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 instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty does not match the pre-operative plan as assessed by intra-operative computer-assisted navigation
Abstract Purpose The introduction of patient-specific instruments ( PSI ) for guiding bone cuts could increase the incidence of malalignment in primary total knee arthroplasty . The purpose of this study was to assess the agreement between one type of patient-specific instrumentation ( Zimmer PSI ) and the pre-operative plan with respect to bone cuts and component alignment during TKR using imageless computer navigation . Methods A consecutive series of 30 femoral and tibial guides  were assessed in-theatre by the same surgeon using computer navigation . Following surgical exposure , the PSI cutting guides were placed on the joint surface and alignment assessed using the navigation tracker . The difference between in-theatre data and the pre-operative plan was recorded and analysed . Results The error between in-theatre measurements and pre-operative plan for the femoral and tibial components exceeded 3 ° for 3 and 17 % of the sample , respectively , while the error for total coronal alignment exceeded 3 ° for 27 % of the sample . Conclusion The present results indicate that alignment with Zimmer PSI cutting blocks , assessed by imageless navigation , does not match the pre-operative plan in a proportion of cases . To prevent unnecessary increases in the incidence of malalignment in primary TKR , it is recommended that these devices should not be used without objective verification of alignment , either in real-time or with post-operative imaging . Further work is required to identify the source of discrepancies and vali date these devices prior to routine use . Level of evidence II
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 ?