Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) uses advanced imaging of the knee (CT or MRI) to generate individualised cutting blocks aimed to make the procedure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) more accurate and efficient. However, in this era of healthcare cost consciousness, the value of new technologies needs to be critically evaluated. There have been several comparative studies looking at PSI versus standard instrumentation. Most compare PSI with conventional instrumentation in terms of alignment in the coronal plane, operative time and surgical efficiency, cost effectiveness and short-term outcomes. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have also been published. PSI has not been shown to be superior compared with conventional instrumentation in its ability to restore traditional mechanical alignment in primary TKA. Most studies show comparative efficacy and no decrease in the number of outliers in either group. In terms of operative time and efficiency, PSI tended towards decreasing operative time, saving a mean of five minutes per patient (0 to 20). Furthermore, while some cost savings could be realised with less operative time and reduced instrumentation per patient, these savings were overcome by the cost of the CT/MRI and the cutting blocks. Finally, there was no evidence that PSI positively affected clinical outcomes at two days, two months, or two years. Consequently, current evidence does not support routine use of PSI in routine primary TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):78–80

The cause of dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains elusive. Much attention has been focused on static mechanical alignment as a basis for surgical success and optimising outcomes. More recently, research on both normal and osteoarthritic knees, as well as kinematically aligned TKAs, has suggested that other specific and dynamic factors may be more important than a generic target of 0 ± 3º of a neutral axis. Consideration of these other variables is necessary to understand ideal targets and move beyond generic results.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):81–3.

Patient specific cutting guides generated by preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the patient’s extremity have been proposed as a method of improving the consistency of Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) alignment and adding efficiency to the operative procedure. The cost of this option was evaluated by quantifying the savings from decreased operative time and instrument processing costs compared to the additional cost of the MRI and the guide. Coronal plane alignment was measured in an unselected consecutive series of 200 TKAs, 100 with standard instrumentation and 100 with custom cutting guides. While the cutting guides had significantly lower total operative time and instrument processing time, the estimated $322 savings was overwhelmed by the $1,500 additional cost of the MRI and the cutting guide. All measures of coronal plane alignment were equivalent between the two groups. The data does not currently support the proposition that patient specific guides add value to TKA.

Smart trials are total knee tibial trial liners with load bearing and alignment sensors that will graphically show quantitative compartment load-bearing forces and component track patterns. These values will demonstrate asymmetrical ligament balancing and misalignments with the medial retinaculum temporarily closed. Currently surgeons use feel and visual estimation of imbalance to assess soft-tissue balancing and tracking with the medial retinaculum open, which results in lower medial compartment loads and a wider anteroposterior tibial tracking pattern. The sensor trial will aid the total knee replacement surgeon in performing soft-tissue balancing by providing quantitative visual feedback of changes in forces while performing the releases incrementally. Initial experience using a smart tibial trial is presented.