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 ?
Reliability of templating with patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty.
Magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) or computed tomography-based patient-specific instrumentation ( PSI ) may allow for reliable alignment and fewer outliers when compared with conventionally instrumented total knee arthroplasty ( TKA ) . However , some authors have suggested that frequent intraoperative surgeon-directed changes may still be required . This study evaluated the accuracy of  PSI  to predict component sizing and alignment during TKA . A total of 84 patients ( 89 knees ) who underwent a TKA using a PSI system were evaluated . An MRI-based preoperative plan of every knee was provided and approved by the surgeons . This demonstrated the proposed prosthetic component alignment , as well as the femoral , tibial , and bearing insert component size and position . Intraoperative changes to these components were prospect ively recorded and compared with the computerized preoperative plan . Major changes were defined as any changes in femoral or tibial resection , size , and position of the components . Minor changes were defined as any change in the size of the polyethylene bearing insert . The preoperative plan was able to correctly predict the size of the implanted tibial and femoral component in 93 and 95.5 % of the cases , respectively . Thirteen major intraoperative changes were made . In one knee , the proposed femoral resection was not acceptable ( because of the presence of significant amount of osteophytes ) and was ab and oned in favor of a manual extramedullary guide . In another patient , the proposed femoral and tibial components were upsized . In two other patients , the femoral components were downsized , in four patients , the tibial components were downsized , and in another patient , it was upsized . There were also 16 minor changes , which included 2-mm upsizing of the polyethylene liner in 13 knees and 4-mm upsizing in 3 knees . Surgical experience is necessary to recognize improper component size , incorrect surgical resection , or nonideal alignment when performing TKA using PSI . The authors believe that the design and manufacture of PSI combined with a comprehensive templating result ed in excellent intraoperative concordance of the preoperative plan at the default setting s with minimal changes
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 ?