Skip to main content
Log in

Evolution of customization design for total knee arthroplasty

  • Customization in Arthroplasty (BS Parsley, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is a highly successful surgical procedure with more than 600,000 TKA’s performed annually in the US. Interest in improving surgical outcomes has led to improvements in surgical technique, instrumentation, and implant design. Computer navigation and robotic systems were introduced to further refine the mechanical alignment of joint replacement procedures. The cost to implement some of these technologies and the additional time required in the operating room to utilize these developments has limited the acceptance of them broadly. The introduction of custom instrumentation and cutting blocks based on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has allowed for better restoration of mechanical alignment. Unfortunately, little has changed in patient satisfaction in the past ten years. The recent introduction of patient specific instrumentation and patient specific implants is another step forward to restore the pre-deformity anatomy and joint geometry. This new technology can benefit the hospital by improving operating room time efficiencies through having shorter set-up times, and the elimination of cleaning, sterilization and inventory costs. The patient can potentially benefit by a shorter operative time, improved postoperative alignment and better fitting implants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Mahoney MM, Kinsey T. Overhang of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty: risk factors and clinical consequences. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:1115–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wasielewski RC, Galante JO, Leighty R, et al. Wear patterns on retrieved polyethylene inserts and their relationship to technical considerations during total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, et al. Postoperative alignment of total knee replacement. Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:153.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, et al. Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:1097–106.

    Google Scholar 

  5. • Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:57–63. This study demonstrates that despite all of the technological advances made in total knee replacement surgery in recent years that patient satisfaction for total knee patients is far below what total hip replacement surgery delivers.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB. The John Insall Award: patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:35–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Laurencin CT, Zelicoff SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. Clin Orthop. 1990;260:135.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Hoff WA, Gabriel SM. In vivo knee kinematics derived using an inverse perspective technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;331:107–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Colwell CW, et al. In vivo anteroposterior femorotibial translation: a multi-center analysis. Clin Orthop. 1998;356:47–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, et al. Multi-center determination of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2003;416:37–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Radermacher K, Portheine F, Anton M, et al. Computer assisted orthopedic surgery with image based individual templates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;354:28–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Howell SM, Kuznik K, Hull ML, Siston RA. Results of an initial experience with custom-fit positioning total knee arthroplasty in a series of 48 patients. Orthopedics. 2008;31:857–63.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hafez MA, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB, Sherman KP. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific templating. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;444:184–92.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sisto DJ, Sarin VK. Custon patellofemoral arthroplasty of the knee. JBJS. 2006;88:1475–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lombardi AV. Patient specific knee design: an evolution of computer navigation; current concepts in joint replacement, published abstract, Winter 2007 meeting.

  16. Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Adams JB. Patient-specific approach in total knee arthroplasty; Orthopedics 2008;31:927–30.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Klatt BA, Goyal N, Austin MA, Hozack WJ. Custom-fit total knee arthroplasty (OtisKnee) results in malalignment. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:26–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Noble JW, Moore CA, Lui N. The value of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:153–5.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fitz W. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with use of novel patient-specific resurfacing implants and personalized jigs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:69–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

J Slamin: employed and has patents and stock options with ConforMIS, Inc.; BS Parsley: consultant to Nimbic, Inc., receives royalties and travel expenses from ConforMIS, Inc., has stock/stock options with Nimbic and ConforMIS, Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Slamin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Slamin, J., Parsley, B. Evolution of customization design for total knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 5, 290–295 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-012-9141-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-012-9141-z

Keywords

Navigation