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 improves tibial component rotation in TKA
Purpose To compare the femoral and tibial components rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty ( TKA ) performed either with conventional or with patient-specific instrumentation . Methods Forty-five patients underwent primary TKA and were prospect ively r and omized into two groups : 22 patients into the conventional instrumentation group ( group A ) and 23 patients into the Signature ™ patient-specific instrumentation group ( group B ) . All patients underwent computed tomography of the operated knee in the first week after surgery to measure  the components rotation . Results The femoral component rotation was 0.0 ° ( −0.25 , 1.0 ) in group A , and 0.0 ° ( 0.0 , 1.0 ) in group B. The tibial component rotation was −16.0 ° ( −18.5 , 11.8 ) in group A , and −16.0 ° ( −19.0 , −14.0 ) in group B. There were no significant differences between the two groups in tibial and femoral components rotation . The difference between the tibial component rotation and the neutral tibial rotation was similar in both groups [ 2.0 ° ( −0.5 , 6.3 ) in group A and 2.0 ° ( −1.0 , 4.0 ) in group B ] , but the dispersion around the median was different between the two groups . The amplitude of the difference between tibial rotation and neutral position was 27 ° ( −13 , 14 ) in group A and 9 ° ( −3 , 6 ) in group B. Conclusions There is a smaller chance of internal malrotation of the tibial component with the Signature ™ patient-specific instrumentation system , with less dispersion and amplitude of the tibial component rotation around the neutral position . 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 ?