About this item:

311 Views | 266 Downloads

Author Notes:

Corresponding author: 1518 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. Tel.: +1 404 727 3170.1518 Clifton Road, NE Atlanta GA 30322 USA; sculler@emory.edu

The authors do not have any proprietary interest in the material describe in this article and did not receive any grant support for this research.

One or more of the authors of this paper have disclosed potential or pertinent conflicts of interest, which may include receipt of payment, either direct or indirect, institutional support, or association with an entity in the biomedical field which may be perceived to have potential conflict of interest with this work.

For full disclosure statements refer to DOI:10.1016/j.artd.2017.05.001.



  • Adverse event rate
  • Customized individually made implant
  • Hospital cost
  • Length of stay
  • TKA

Comparison of adverse events rates and hospital cost between customized individually made implants and standard off-the-shelf implants for total knee arthroplasty


Journal Title:

Arthroplasty Today


Volume 3, Number 4


, Pages 257-263

Type of Work:

Article | Final Publisher PDF


Background This study compares selected hospital outcomes between patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using either a customized individually made (CIM) implant or a standard off-the-shelf (OTS) implant. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on 248 consecutive TKA patients treated in a single institution, by the same surgeon. Patients received either CIM (126) or OTS (122) implants. Study data were collected from patients' medical record or the hospital's administrative billing record. Standard statistical methods tested for differences in selected outcome measures between the 2 study arms. Results Compared with the OTS implant study arm, the CIM implant study arm showed significantly lower transfusion rates (2.4% vs 11.6%; P =.005); a lower adverse event rate at both discharge (CIM 3.3% vs OTS 14.1%; P =.003) and 90 days after discharge (CIM 8.1% vs OTS 18.2%; P =.023); and a smaller percentage of patients were discharged to a rehabilitation or other acute care facility (4.8% vs 16.4%; P =.003). Total average real hospital cost for the TKA hospitalization between the 2 groups were nearly identical (CIM $16,192 vs OTS $16,240; P =.913). Finally, the risk-adjusted per patient total cost of care showed a net savings of $913.87 (P =.240) per patient for the CIM-TKA group, for bundle of care including the preoperative computed tomography scan, TKA hospitalization, and discharge disposition. Conclusions Patients treated with a CIM implant had significantly lower transfusion rates, fewer adverse event rates, and were less likely to be discharged to a rehabilitation facility or another acute care facility. These outcomes were achieved without increasing costs.

Copyright information:

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Creative Commons License

Export to EndNote