ArticleCureus2025
Clinical and Economic Case for Patient-Specific Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common surgical intervention for severe knee arthritis resulting in joint or cartilage destruction, with success largely depending on prosthetic design and surgical technique. This study compares two Cruciate Retaining (CR) TKA systems, the iTotal® Identity CR system (ConforMIS; Wilmington, MA), a patient-specific knee (PSK) system, with the Triathlon® Total Knee System (Stryker; Kalamazoo, MI), a standard off-the-shelf (OTS) system, hypothesizing that the PSK system results in better clinical outcomes and reduced costs.
methodsThis single-center, prospective study included 188 patients (217 knees) who underwent TKA with either the PSK or OTS system from August 2017 to February 2021. Participants were enrolled if they had a clinical indication for total knee replacement and were deemed suitable candidates for either system. All participants were adults (18+ years) and capable of providing informed consent. Data on operative times, complications, patient-reported outcomes, and cost metrics were collected and analyzed.
resultsCompared to the OTS group, the PSK group had a significantly shorter average total operating room (OR) time (85.2 vs. 95.9 minutes, p < 0.001), tourniquet time (50.2 vs. 64.3 minutes, p < 0.001), OR instrument setup time (5.0 vs. 11.9 minutes, p < 0.001) and OR instrument tear down time (1.5 vs. 7.0 minutes, p < 0.001). At preoperative baseline, the PSK participants had a worse mean Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) score (40.73 vs. 49.6, p <0.001) and worse Knee Society Scores (KSS) (50.9 vs. 62.7, p <0.001) compared to the OTS group. Finally, the PSK group demonstrated greater mean improvement postoperatively in both the KOOS-JR (37.33 vs. 24.61, p <0.001) and the KSS (113.1 vs. 98.1, p <0.001) scores, compared to the OTS group.
conclusionsThe PSK system demonstrated advantages in operative efficiency and improved patient-reported outcomes at the three-month follow-up compared to a standard OTS knee replacement system. These findings highlight potential benefits in adopting patient-specific implants in TKA, with implications for both clinical outcomes and healthcare cost savings. However, further research with longer follow-up periods in diverse patient populations is necessary to fully understand the long-term implications of patient-specific knee replacement systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.