The Mark Coventry Award: Custom Cutting Guides Do Not Improve Total Knee Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes at 2 Years Followup

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Volumn 474, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 40-46

  Nam, Denis ^a   Park, Andrew ^a   Stambough, Jeffrey B ^a   Johnson, Staci R ^a   Nunley, Ryan M ^a   Barrack, Robert L ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL EVALUATION; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CUSTOM CUTTING GUIDE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OXFORD KNEE SCORE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SHORT FORM 12; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGED; AWARDS AND PRIZES; BIOMECHANICS; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; CONVALESCENCE; DEVICES; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISABILITY; FACTUAL DATABASE; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; KNEE; KNEE PROSTHESIS; KNEE REPLACEMENT; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; SURGERY; TIME FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

BONE CEMENT;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; AWARDS AND PRIZES; BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; BONE CEMENTS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; KNEE JOINT; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84952871547     PISSN: 0009921X     EISSN: 15281132     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4216-y     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Abdel MP, Parratte S, Blanc G, Ollivier M, Pomero V, Viehweger E, Argenson JN. No benefit of patient-specific instrumentation in TKA on functional and gait outcomes: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2468–2476.
2. Anand S, Harrison JW, Buch KA. Extramedullary or intramedullary tibial alignment guides: a randomised, prospective trial of radiological alignment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;7:1084; author reply 1084.
3. Anderson KC, Buehler KC, Markel DC. Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: comparison with conventional methods. J Arthroplasty. 2005;7(Suppl 3):132–138.
4. Ast MP, Nam D, Haas SB. Patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: a review. Orthop Clin North Am. 2012;5:e17–22.
5. Bardakos N, Cil A, Thompson B, Stocks G. Mechanical axis cannot be restored in total knee arthroplasty with a fixed valgus resection angle: a radiographic study. J Arthroplasty. 2007;6(Suppl 2):85–89.
6. Barrack RL, Ruh EL, Williams BM, Ford AD, Foreman K, Nunley RM. Patient specific cutting blocks are currently of no proven value. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;11(Suppl A):95–99.
7. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS. The ‘forgotten joint’ as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty. 2012;3:430–436.e1.
8. Boonen B, Schotanus MG, Kort NP. Preliminary experience with the patient-specific templating total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2012;4:387–393.
9. Canale ST, Beaty JH. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics. 11th ed. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Elsevier Inc; 2008.
10. Chareancholvanich K, Narkbunnam R, Pornrattanamaneewong C. A prospective randomised controlled study of patient-specific cutting guides compared with conventional instrumentation in total knee replacement. Bone Joint J. 2013;3:354–359.
11. Chen JY, Yeo SJ, Yew AK, Tay DK, Chia SL, Lo NN, Chin PL. The radiological outcomes of patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;3:630–635.
12. Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AH. The minimal clinically important difference in the oxford knee score and short form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;8:1933–1939.
13. Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Pullen C, Ragone V. Computer-assisted technique versus intramedullary and extramedullary alignment systems in total knee replacement: a radiological comparison. Acta Orthop Belg. 2005;6:703–709.
14. Daniilidis K, Tibesku CO. Frontal plane alignment after total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instruments. Int Orthop. 2013;1:45–50.
15. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;1:63–69.
16. Ensini A, Catani F, Leardini A, Romagnoli M, Giannini S. Alignments and clinical results in conventional and navigated total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;457:156–162.
17. Hamilton WG, Parks NL, Saxena A. Patient-specific instrumentation does not shorten surgical time: a prospective, randomized trial. J Arthroplasty. 2013;8(Suppl):96–100.
18. Krishnan SP, Dawood A, Richards R, Henckel J, Hart AJ. A review of rapid prototyped surgical guides for patient-specific total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;11:1457–1461.
19. Manzotti A, Pullen C, Confalonieri N. Computer-assisted alignment system for tibial component placement in total knee replacement: a radiological study. Chir Organi Mov. 2008;1:7–11.
20. Marimuthu K, Chen DB, Harris IA, Wheatley E, Bryant CJ, Macdessi SJ. A multi-planar CT-based comparative analysis of patient-specific cutting guides with conventional instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1138–1142.
21. Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, Banel D, Fahrbach K. Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2007;8:1097–1106.
22. Nam D, McArthur BA, Cross MB, Pearle AD, Mayman DJ, Haas SB. Patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a review. J Knee Surg. 2012;3:213–219.
23. Ng VY, Declaire JH, Berend KR, Gulick BC, Lombardi AV Jr. Improved accuracy of alignment with patient-specific positioning guides compared with manual instrumentation in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:99–107.
24. Noble JW Jr, Moore CA, Liu N. The value of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;1:153–155.
25. Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Ruh EL, Williams BM, Foreman K, Ford AD, Barrack RL. Are patient-specific cutting blocks cost-effective for total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:889–894.
26. Nunley RM, Ellison BS, Zhu J, Ruh EL, Howell SM, Barrack RL. Do patient-specific guides improve coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:895–902.
27. Pang CH, Chan WL, Yen CH, Cheng SC, Woo SB, Choi ST, Hui WK, Mak KH. Comparison of total knee arthroplasty using computer-assisted navigation versus conventional guiding systems: a prospective study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2009;2:170–173.
28. Parratte S, Blanc G, Boussemart T, Ollivier M, Le Corroller T, Argenson JN. Rotation in total knee arthroplasty: no difference between patient-specific and conventional instrumentation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;10:2213–2219.
29. Pietsch M, Djahani O, Hochegger M, Plattner F, Hofmann S. Patient-specific total knee arthroplasty: the importance of planning by the surgeon. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;10:2220–2226.
30. Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, Pierson JL, Berend ME, Malinzak RA. The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;17:1588–1596.
31. Sassoon A, Nam D, Nunley R, Barrack R. Systematic review of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: new but not improved. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:151–158.
32. Schnurr C, Csecsei G, Eysel P, Konig DP. The effect of computer navigation on blood loss and transfusion rate in TKA. Orthopedics. 2010;7:474.
33. Slover J, Rubash H, Malchau H, Bosco J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of custom total knee cutting blocks. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:180–185.
34. Stronach BM, Pelt CE, Erickson J, Peters CL. Patient-specific total knee arthroplasty required frequent surgeon-directed changes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:169–174.
35. Thienpont E, Bellemans J, Delport H, Van Overschelde P, Stuyts B, Brabants K, Victor J. Patient-specific instruments: industry’s innovation with a surgeon’s interest. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;10:2227–2233.
36. Victor J. Rotational alignment of the distal femur: a literature review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009;5:365–372.
37. Vundelinckx BJ, Bruckers L, De Mulder K, De Schepper J, Van Esbroeck G. Functional and radiographic short-term outcome evaluation of the Visionaire system, a patient-matched instrumentation system for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;6:964–970.
38. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;3:220–233.
39. Watters TS, Mather RC 3rd, Browne JA, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Bolognesi MP. Analysis of procedure-related costs and proposed benefits of using patient-specific approach in total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2011;2:112–116.
40. Woolson ST, Harris AH, Wagner DW, Giori NJ. Component alignment during total knee arthroplasty with use of standard or custom instrumentation: a randomized clinical trial using computed tomography for postoperative alignment measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;5:366–372.
41. Yaffe M, Luo M, Goyal N, Chan P, Patel A, Cayo M, Stulberg SD. Clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes following total knee arthroplasty with patient-specific instrumentation, computer-assisted surgery, and manual instrumentation: a short-term follow-up study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2014;9:837–844.
42. Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;8:890–895.