Open Access
Issue
SICOT-J
Volume 10, 2024
Article Number 12
Number of page(s) 6
Section Knee
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2024009
Published online 09 April 2024
  1. Thienpont E, Bellemans J, Delport H, Van Overschelde P, Stuyts B, Brabants K, et al. (2013) Patient-specific instruments: Industry’s innovation with a surgeon’s interest. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(10), 2227–2233. [Google Scholar]
  2. Noble JW Jr, Moore CA, Liu N (2012) The value of patient-matched instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27(1), 153–155. [Google Scholar]
  3. Chareancholvanich K, Narkbunnam R, Pornrattanamaneewong C (2013) A prospective randomised controlled study of patient-specific cutting guides compared with conventional instrumentation in total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 95-B(3), 354–359. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alfonso DT, Toussaint RJ, Alfonso BD, Strauss EJ, Steiger DT, Di Cesare PE (2006) Nonsurgical complications after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 35(11), 503–510. [Google Scholar]
  5. Taviloglu K, Yanar H (2007) Fat embolism syndrome. Surg Today 37(1), 5–8. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kim YH (2001) Incidence of fat embolism syndrome after cemented or cementless bilateral simultaneous and unilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 16(6), 730–739. [Google Scholar]
  7. Nam D, McArthur BA, Cross MB, Pearle AD, Mayman DJ, Haas SB (2012) Patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: A review. J Knee Surg 25(3), 213–219. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rudran B, Magill H, Ponugoti N, Williams A, Ball S (2022) Functional outcomes in patient specific instrumentation vs. conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty; a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23(1), 702. [Google Scholar]
  9. Thienpont E, Schwab PE, Fennema P (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient specific instrumentation for improving alignment of the components in total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 96-B(8), 1052–1061. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hinloopen JH, Puijk R, Nolte PA, Schoones JW, de Ridder R, Pijls BG (2023) The efficacy and safety of patient-specific instrumentation in primary total knee replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Med Devices 20(3), 245–252. [Google Scholar]
  11. Torok L, Javor P, Hartmann P, Banki L, Varga E (2021) Should we abandon the patient-specific instrumentation ship in total knee arthroplasty? Not quite yet! BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22(1), 730. [Google Scholar]
  12. Nizam I, Batra AV (2018) Accuracy of bone resection in total knee arthroplasty using CT assisted-3D printed patient specific cutting guides. SICOT J 4, 29. [Google Scholar]
  13. Victor J, Dujardin J, Vandenneucker H, Arnout N, Bellemans J (2014) Patient-specific guides do not improve accuracy in total knee arthroplasty: A prospective randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(1), 263–271. [Google Scholar]
  14. Duan G, Liu C, Lin W, Shao J, Fu K, Niu Y, et al. (2018) Different factors conduct anterior knee pain following primary total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty, 33(6), 1962–1971. [Google Scholar]
  15. Viskontas DG, Skrinskas TV, Johnson JA, King GJ, Winemaker MJ, Chess DG (2007) Computer-assisted gap equalization in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22(3), 334–342. [Google Scholar]
  16. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39(2), 175–191. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kanda Y (2013) Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transpl 48(3), 452–458. [Google Scholar]
  18. Marchand KB, Salem HS, Mathew KK, Harwin SF, Mont MA, Marchand RC (2022) The accuracy of computed tomography-based, three-dimensional implant planning in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 35(14), 1587–1594. [Google Scholar]
  19. Levy YD, An VVG, Shean CJW, Groen FR, Walker PM, Bruce WJM (2017) The accuracy of bony resection from patient-specific guides during total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(6), 1678–1685. [Google Scholar]
  20. Okada Y, Teramoto A, Suzuki T, Kii Y, Watanabe K, Yamashita T (2017) Preoperative corrections are required for planning of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 24(6), 1492–1497. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kievit AJ, Dobbe JGG, Streekstra GJ, Blankevoort L, Schafroth MU (2018) Predicted osteotomy planes are accurate when using patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty in cadavers: A descriptive analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(6), 1751–1758. [Google Scholar]
  22. Dorling IM, Geenen L, Heymans M, Most J, Boonen B, Schotanus MGM (2023) Cost effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Orthop 14(6), 458–470. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cavaignac E, Pailhe R, Laumond G, Murgier J, Reina N, Laffosse JM, et al. (2015) Evaluation of the accuracy of patient-specific cutting blocks for total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. Int Orthop 39(8), 1541–1552. [Google Scholar]
  24. Helmy N, Dao Trong ML, Kuhnel SP (2014) Accuracy of patient specific cutting blocks in total knee arthroplasty. Biomed Res Int 2014, 562919. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tibesku CO, Hofer P, Portegies W, Ruys CJ, Fennema P (2013) Benefits of using customized instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: Results from an activity-based costing model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133(3), 405–411. [Google Scholar]
  26. Voleti PB, Hamula MJ, Baldwin KD, Lee GC (2014) Current data do not support routine use of patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 29(9), 1709–1712. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.