Systematic Review of Patient-specific Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty: New but Not Improved
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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/PURPOSES: We 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? METHODS: We performed a systematic review in accordance with Cochrane guidelines of controlled studies (prospective and retrospective) in MEDLINE® and EMBASE® with respect to patient-specific cutting blocks and their effect on alignment, cost, operative time, clinical outcome scores, complications, and survivorship. Sixteen studies (Level I-III on the levels of evidence rubric) were identified and used in addressing the first question, 13 (Level I-III) for the second question, and two (Level III) for the third question. Qualitative assessment of the selected Level I studies was performed using the modified Jadad score; Level II and III studies were rated based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system. RESULTS: The majority of studies did not show an improvement in overall limb alignment when PSI was compared with standard instrumentation. Mixed results were seen across studies with regard to the prevalence of alignment outliers when PSI was compared with conventional cutting blocks with some studies demonstrating no difference, some showing an improvement with PSI, and a single study showing worse results with PSI. 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. Limited data exist with regard to the effect of PSI on postoperative function, improvement in pain, and patient satisfaction. Neither of the two studies we identified provided strong evidence to support an advantage favoring the use of PSI. No identified studies addressed survivorship of components placed with PSI compared with those placed with standard instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS: PSI for TKA has not reliably demonstrated improvement of postoperative limb or component alignment when compared with standard 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. Mid- and long-term data regarding PSI's effect on functional outcomes and component survivorship do not exist and short-term data are scarce. Limited available literature does not clearly support any improvement of postoperative pain, activity, function, or ROM when PSI is compared with traditional instrumentation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,028 | 0,107 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,012 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,019 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».