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 ?
A prospective randomised controlled study of patient-specific cutting guides compared with conventional instrumentation in total knee replacement.
Patient-specific cutting guides ( PSCGs ) are design ed to improve the accuracy of alignment of total knee replacement ( TKR ) . We compared the accuracy of limb alignment and component positioning after  TKR  performed using PSCGs or conventional instrumentation . A total of 80 patients were r and omised to undergo TKR with either of the different forms of instrumentation , and radiological outcomes and peri-operative factors such as operating time were assessed . No significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of tibiofemoral angle or femoral component alignment . Although the tibial component in the PSCGs group was measurably closer to neutral alignment than in the conventional group , the size of the difference was very small ( 89.8 ° ( sd 1.2 ) vs 90.5 ° ( sd 1.6 ) ; p = 0.030 ) . This new technology slightly shortened the bone-cutting time by a mean of 3.6 minutes ( p < 0.001 ) and the operating time by a mean 5.1 minutes ( p = 0.019 ) , without tangible differences in post-operative blood loss ( p = 0.528 ) or need for blood transfusion ( p = 0.789 ) . This study demonstrated that both PSCGs and conventional instrumentation  restore limb alignment and place the components with the similar accuracy . The minimal advantages of PSCGs in terms of consistency of alignment or operative time are unlikely to be clinical ly relevant
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 ?