Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Evaluation of Time and Productivity Costs of Purified Protein Derivative (PPD) Testing.

Quality management in health care·2026
Same author

Reply to: "Comment on 'AI implementation: radiologists' perspectives on AI-enabled opportunistic CT screening'".

Clinical imaging·2025
Same author

Medicare reimbursement for interventional pain procedures: 2000 to 2023.

Interventional pain medicine·2024
Same author

Reply to: "Comment: Radiologists' Perspectives on AI and Opportunistic CT Screening (OS)".

Clinical imaging·2024
Same author

AI implementation: Radiologists' perspectives on AI-enabled opportunistic CT screening.

Clinical imaging·2024
Same author

Primary care provider perspectives on the value of opportunistic CT screening.

Clinical imaging·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 9, 2026

3D Planning and Printing of Patient Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Bony Defects
08:15

3D Planning and Printing of Patient Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Bony Defects

Published on: August 4, 2020

7.1K

Patient-Specific Orthopaedic Implants.

Jack M Haglin1, Adam E M Eltorai2, Joseph A Gil3,2

  • 1Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.

Orthopaedic Surgery
|December 30, 2016
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Patient-specific implants offer improved anatomical fit in orthopaedic surgery. However, evidence is needed to confirm if these patient-specific implants (PSI) truly enhance surgical outcomes compared to standard procedures.

Keywords:
Custom implantsOrthopaedic surgeryPatient-specific implants

More Related Videos

The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report
07:45

The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report

Published on: August 4, 2022

3.9K
Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees
14:31

Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees

Published on: July 15, 2009

14.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 9, 2026

3D Planning and Printing of Patient Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Bony Defects
08:15

3D Planning and Printing of Patient Specific Implants for Reconstruction of Bony Defects

Published on: August 4, 2020

7.1K
The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report
07:45

The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report

Published on: August 4, 2022

3.9K
Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees
14:31

Bioelectric Analyses of an Osseointegrated Intelligent Implant Design System for Amputees

Published on: July 15, 2009

14.6K

Area of Science:

  • Orthopaedic surgery
  • Biomedical engineering
  • Medical device technology

Background:

  • Patient-specific implant (PSI) technology utilizes advanced imaging and computer software to create custom implants and surgical guides tailored to individual patient anatomy.
  • This approach aims to optimize biomechanical fit, potentially reducing procedural costs, surgical time, and improving patient outcomes.
  • PSIs are increasingly used in total knee arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty, and corrective osteotomies, with explorations in shoulder and spinal surgery.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review the current status and future directions of patient-specific orthopaedic implants.
  • To summarize existing literature comparing PSI use with standard orthopaedic procedures.
  • To evaluate definitive surgical characteristics, including patient outcomes, biomechanical alignment, cost, blood loss, and recovery.

Main Methods:

  • Literature review of published studies on patient-specific orthopaedic implants.
  • Analysis of comparative studies measuring surgical outcomes, biomechanical alignment, cost-effectiveness, blood loss, and patient recovery.
  • Assessment of the theoretical biomechanical advantages against actual clinical benefits.

Main Results:

  • Increased adoption of PSI technology in various orthopaedic subspecialties over the past decade.
  • Limited comparative studies currently exist to definitively support the clinical advantages of PSIs over standard procedures.
  • Uncertainty remains regarding whether theoretical biomechanical benefits translate into superior surgical outcomes.

Conclusions:

  • Patient-specific implants represent a promising advancement in orthopaedics, offering personalized anatomical solutions.
  • Further high-quality comparative research is essential to validate the purported benefits of PSIs in terms of patient outcomes and efficiency.
  • The clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of PSI technology require more robust evidence to guide widespread adoption.