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: the importance of planning by the surgeon
Abstract Purpose The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of the planning of the patient-specific pin guides in total knee arthroplasty ( TKA ) . This planning was performed primarily by a technician of the company and offered to the surgeon . All parameters of the implantation can either be modified or accepted by the surgeon . The hypothesis was that the plan needs preoperative intervention by the surgeon . Methods A prospect i ve study in 50 patients was carried out . All patients received the same posterior-stabilised implant with patient-specific instrumentation . All surgical parameters ( coronal , sagittal , rotational alignment , femoral and tibial resection levels and implant sizes ) were checked by the orthopaedic surgeon and changed if necessary . Results Preoperatively , the femoral size was changed in 8 patients ( 16 % ) , the femoral flexion in 23 patients ( 46 % ) , the femoral shift in 34 patients ( 68 % ) , the tibial size in 24 patients ( 48 % ) and the tibial rotation in all patients . The epicondylar axis was accepted in 47 patients ( 94 % ) in the technician plan . Mean planning time was 8 ± 4 min . Intraoperatively , the femoral anterior – posterior size was in 50 patients ( 100 % ) the same as in the surgeon and in 42 patients ( 84 % ) the same as in the technician plan ( p = 0.003 ) . The tibial component implanted was in 42 patients ( 84 % ) the same as in the surgeon and in 19 patients ( 38 % ) the same as in the technician plan ( p < 0.0001 ) . A femoral distal recut was necessary in 31 patients ( 62 % ) and a change of the tibial proximal cut in 17 patients ( 34 % ) during surgery . Intraoperatively , no changes of the femoral and tibial alignment , the femoral anterior – posterior size , the femoral flexion , the femoral shift , the femoral and tibial rotation were necessary . Postoperatively , the coronal mechanical overall axis was within ±3 ° in 47 patients ( 94 % ) with a maximum deviation of 5.6 ° . Conclusions Significant changes of the technician plan were necessary to get an accurate preoperative plan . Intraoperative changes were significant less compared to the surgeon than to the technician plan . No major changes ( alignment , femoral anterior – posterior size and rotation ) of the surgeon plan were necessary . Surgeons using patient-specific pin guides in TKA may verify the default plan provided by the technician . A blind reply on the technician plan may be not recommended . Level of evidence Therapeutic study , Level III
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 ?