Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37979098›Full record

SynthesisArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2024

No clinical advantage with customized individually made implants over conventional off-the-shelf implants in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abu Z Saeed, Tahir Khaleeq, Usman Ahmed, Randeep Ajula, Tarek Boutefnouchet, Peter D'Alessandro, Shahbaz S Malik

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Individualised total knee arthroplasty demonstrates 99.4% survival at 3 to 5 years.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026
    Observational
  3. [The importance of individual knee arthroplasty].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Abu Z SaeedThe Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital, Gobowen, Oswestry, SY10 7AG, UK. abusaeed@nhs.net.
Tahir KhaleeqThe Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital, Gobowen, Oswestry, SY10 7AG, UK.
Usman AhmedWorcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester, UK.
Randeep AjulaUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Tarek BoutefnouchetUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Peter D'AlessandroOrthopaedic Research Foundation of Western Australia, Medical School, Discipline of Surgery, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Shahbaz S MalikWorcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester, UK.
Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital · GBWorcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be performed with either conventional off-the-shelf (OTS) or customized individually-made (CIM) implants. The evidence for CIM implants is limited and variable, and the aim of this review was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between CIM and OTS implants.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting on clinical, radiological, or alignment outcomes for CIM and OTS implants were selected. The studies were appraised using the Methodical index for non-randomized studies tool.

resultsTwenty-three studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The studies comprised 2856 CIM and 1877 OTS TKAs. Revision rate was higher with CIM (5.9%) compared to OTS (3.7%) implants [OR 1.23(95% CI 0.69-2.18)]. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) was higher in CIM (2.2%) compared to OTS (1.1%) group [OR 2.95(95% CI 0.95-9.13)] and complications rate was higher in CIM (5%) vs. OTS (4.5%) [OR 1.45(95% CI 0.53-3.96)] but neither reached statistical significance. Length of stay was significantly shorter in CIM group 2.9 days vs. 3.5 days [MD - 0.51(95% CI - 0.82 to - 0.20)]. Knee Society Score showed no difference between CIM and OTS groups for Knee 90.5 vs. 90.6 [MD - 0.27(95% CI - 4.27 to 3.73)] and Function 86.1 vs. 83.1 [MD 1.51(95% CI - 3.69 to 6.70)].

conclusionCIM implants in TKA have theoretical benefits over OTS prostheses. However, in this present review, CIM implants were associated with higher revisions, MUA, and overall complication rates. There was no difference in outcome score and CIM implants did not improve overall target alignment; however, more CIM TKAs were found to be in the HKA target zone compared to OTS TKAs. The findings of this review do not support the general utilization of CIM over OTS implants in TKA.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisProsthesis DesignHumansPostoperative ComplicationsReoperationTreatment OutcomeCustomized individually made implantsImplant alignmentOff-the shelf implantsTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID37979098
OpenAlexW4388795419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.