Patient-specific instrumentation in total ankle arthroplasty

Table 1 Summary of all actual studies about patient-specific instrumentation in total ankle arthroplasty

Author	Implant type	Study type	No patients	Navigation system	Tibial implant size predicted	Talar implant size predicted	Implant positioning accuracy	Neutral alignment	Comparison with standard technique
Berlet et al[10] (2014)	INBONE	Cadaveric study	15 lower limb	PROPHECY			Within 3 degree and translational within 2 mm
Hsu et al[11] (2015)	INBONE II vs INFINITY	Retrospective case series	42	PROPHECY	100% INBONEIIvs 92% INFINITY	76% INBONEII vs 46% INFINITY	± 3° coronal and sagittal	100%
Hanselman et al[12] (2015)	INBONE II	Case report	1	PROPHECY				Yes
Daigre et al[13] (2017)	INBONE II	Retrospective multicenter study	44	PROPHECY	98%	80%	< 3° (79.5%), < 4° (88.6%), < 5° (100%)	93.2%
Saito et al[1] (2019)	INFINITY	Retrospective study	99 (75 PSI - 24 SRG)	PROPHECY	73%	51%	Coronal: SRG: 88% < 3°, 8% from 3° to 5°, 4% > 5°; PSI: 85.3% < 3°, 3.3% from 3° to 5°, 1.3% > 5°. Sagittal: SRG: 88% < 3°, 8% from 3° to 5°, 4% > 5°; PSI: 85% < 3° of deviation, 11% from 3° to 5°, 4 % > 5°	100% in PSI vs 96% in SRG	P = 0.884 not statistically different
Faldini et al[8] (2020)	BOX	Case report	1	GEOMAGIC CONTROL	-	-	-	Yes	-

PSI: Patient-specific instrumentation; SRG: Standard Referencing Guide.