Patient-Specific Instrumentation Versus Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty .
No significant differences in clinical outcome and survival between patient-specific instrumentation and conventional total knee arthroplasty: 10 year follow-up of a multicenter double blind randomized controlled trial
One hundred twenty-nine patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized to receive either patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) (n=64) or conventional arthroplasty (CA) (n=65). The primary outcome of interest was patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Secondary outcomes of interest included revision rates and signs of loosening of the components on X-rays. Outcomes were assessed up to 10 years. Overall, the results of the study revealed no significant differences between PSI and CA in terms of PROMs and revision rates. This suggests that PSI does not offer a clinical advantage over CA, considering its higher costs.
Unlock the Full ACE Report
You have access to 4 more FREE articles this month.
Click below to unlock and view this ACE Reports
Unlock Now
Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Exclusive access to original content articles, including in-house systematic reviews, and articles on health research methods and hot orthopaedic topics
Or upgrade today and gain access to all OrthoEvidencecontent for as little as $1.99 per week.
Already have an account? Log in
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
