RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be performed with either conventional off-the-shelf (OTS) or customized individually-made (CIM) implants. The evidence for CIM implants is limited and variable, and the aim of this review was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between CIM and OTS implants. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting on clinical, radiological, or alignment outcomes for CIM and OTS implants were selected. The studies were appraised using the Methodical index for non-randomized studies tool. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The studies comprised 2856 CIM and 1877 OTS TKAs. Revision rate was higher with CIM (5.9%) compared to OTS (3.7%) implants [OR 1.23(95% CI 0.69-2.18)]. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) was higher in CIM (2.2%) compared to OTS (1.1%) group [OR 2.95(95% CI 0.95-9.13)] and complications rate was higher in CIM (5%) vs. OTS (4.5%) [OR 1.45(95% CI 0.53-3.96)] but neither reached statistical significance. Length of stay was significantly shorter in CIM group 2.9 days vs. 3.5 days [MD - 0.51(95% CI - 0.82 to - 0.20)]. Knee Society Score showed no difference between CIM and OTS groups for Knee 90.5 vs. 90.6 [MD - 0.27(95% CI - 4.27 to 3.73)] and Function 86.1 vs. 83.1 [MD 1.51(95% CI - 3.69 to 6.70)]. CONCLUSION: CIM implants in TKA have theoretical benefits over OTS prostheses. However, in this present review, CIM implants were associated with higher revisions, MUA, and overall complication rates. There was no difference in outcome score and CIM implants did not improve overall target alignment; however, more CIM TKAs were found to be in the HKA target zone compared to OTS TKAs. The findings of this review do not support the general utilization of CIM over OTS implants in TKA.