Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41329855›Full record

Trial reportActa orthopaedica2025

Effect of patient specific instruments compared with conventional instruments in total knee arthroplasty : a randomized controlled trial.

Jakob Hermodsson, Tuuli Saari, Bita Shareghi, Maziar Mohaddes, Anna Nilsdotter, Johan Kärrholm

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Acta orthopaedica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jakob HermodssonDepartment of Orthopedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal; Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden. jakob.hermodsson@vgregion.se.
Tuuli SaariDepartment of Orthopedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal; Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Bita ShareghiDepartment of Orthopedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal; Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Maziar MohaddesDepartment of Orthopaedics, Skåne University Hospital, Hässleholm; Unit for Orthopaedics, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Anna NilsdotterDepartment of Orthopedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal; Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Johan KärrholmDepartment of Orthopedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal; Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4782-7999

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposePatient-specific instrumentation (PSI) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to improve implant alignment and clinical outcomes, but its effectiveness remains uncertain. We aimed to compare whether PSI was superior to conventional instrumentation (CVI) in TKA. The primary outcome was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at 2 years with assessments of additional clinical outcomes up to 5 years after surgery.

methodsThis study included 70 knees with primary osteoarthritis randomized (1:1) to undergo TKA using either PSI or CVI. Outcomes were evaluated using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiographic alignment, and radiostereometric analysis (RSA) of migration over the full follow-up period of 5 years.

results68 knees underwent surgery as per protocol. At 2 years, 29 knees in the PSI group and 36 in the CVI group were assessed with the OKS, which improved significantly by 21.2 in the PSI group and 18.2 in the CVI group (mean difference [MD] 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.5 to 5.7). PSI resulted in slightly increased tibial varus alignment (MD -1.4°; CI -2.3° to -0.4°), migrated slightly more into varus (mean difference at 2 years: -0.28 mm, CI -0.54 to -0.03 mm), and showed higher maximum total point motion (MTPM) during the period 1 to 2 years (mean difference: 0.13 mm; CI 0.01-0.25). At 5 years, 3 knees had been revised (PSI: 2; CVI: 1).

conclusionPSI did not demonstrate superior outcomes compared with CVI. These findings suggest that PSI may not provide significant benefits over conventional techniques in routine TKA.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisOsteoarthritis, KneeAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresProsthesis DesignRadiostereometric AnalysisRange of Motion, ArticularTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID41329855
PMCPMC12673265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.