KSSTA - 2026-07-09 - Journal Article
No clear benefit of patient-specific instruments over conventional instrumentation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A secondary analysis of a multicentre randomised trial with 5-year follow-up.
Leenders AM, Schotanus MGM, Most J, Van Geenen RCI, Boonen B
Topics
Key Takeaway
At 5-year follow-up, PSI showed a numerically higher but non-significant revision rate versus conventional instrumentation in UKA (14.3% vs. 5.1%, p=0.094), with no difference in any PROM.
Summary Depth
Choose how much analysis to show on this article page.
Summary
This secondary analysis of a two-center RCT compared PSI versus conventional instrumentation for UKA across revision rate and six PROMs at minimum 5-year follow-up. Revision rates were 14.3% (PSI) versus 5.1% (CI), a clinically meaningful difference that did not reach statistical significance (p=0.094). All PROMs—Oxford Knee Score, WOMAC, EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-VAS, NRS-pain, and FJS-12—improved significantly from baseline in both groups with no between-group difference.
Key Limitation
The study is underpowered for its primary survivorship endpoint; with only 11 total revisions across both groups, a true clinically important difference in revision rates (nearly threefold: 14.3% vs. 5.1%) cannot be excluded or confirmed.
Original Abstract
PURPOSE
The objective of the secondary analysis of this randomised controlled trial, conducted at two medical centres, was to compare the revision-free survivorship and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of patient-specific instruments (PSI) versus conventional instrumentation (CI) used in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) over a mid-term follow-up period of at least 5-years. The hypothesis was that both groups would show similar outcomes.
METHODS
A total of 120 patients from two separate teaching hospitals were recruited and assigned at random to receive either PSI or CI for UKA. The primary outcomes included the revision rate and PROMs, including the Oxford Knee Score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-3L) and Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-5D-VAS), the Numeric Rating Scale for pain (NRS-pain) and the forgotten joint score (FJS-12).
RESULTS
The overall incidence of revisions was not statistically significantly different between PSI and CI (14.3% (8/56) vs. 5.1% (3/59), (p 0.094) The main reasons for revision included progression of lateral osteoarthritis (3.6% (2/56) vs. 0%), bearing dislocation (1.8% (1/56) vs. 1.7% (1/59)), persisting knee pain (1.8% (1/56) vs. 1.7% (1/59)) and instability (1.8% (1/56) vs. 1.7% (1/59)). All PROMs improved significantly postoperatively, but no statistically significant difference was observed between the PSI and CI group.
CONCLUSIONS
The PSI method showed comparable results regarding patient-reported clinical and functional outcomes and prosthesis survival during the mid-term follow-up. A numerically higher, but not statistically significant, revision rate was observed in the PSI group. Based on the current findings, PSI do not appear to offer clear benefits over CI in UKA; however, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution given the likely limited statistical power of the study to detect differences in revision rates.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level II.