You have full access to this open access article. Follow-up was at 4 months, 1 year and 2 years. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction. Surgeon satisfaction was high throughout both groups.
Patients who were satisfied after 2 years did not differ preoperatively from those who were not satisfied. Postoperatively, all PROMs were better for satisfied patients. Patient satisfaction was not correlated with patient characteristics, implant or preoperative PROMs, and medium to strongly correlated with postoperative PROMs. Both implant systems improved function, pain and health-related quality of life. Achieving a high percentage of satisfied patients after a total knee arthroplasty TKA is still challenging.
Several factors and predictors have been identified [ 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ], with persistent pain and limited function being the main reasons for patient dissatisfaction [ 10 ]. From a patient-centred perspective, a TKA is only successful if the patient is satisfied with the outcome. CIM implants are manufactured based on a computed tomography scan of the affected leg.
The underlying concept is to respect the anatomical variability and to restore the individual anatomy, thereby improving knee kinematics. CIM TKAs were designed to overcome these limitations and to improve clinical outcome and patient satisfaction.
The high variability in morphology supports the evolution towards CIM TKA to potentially achieve better boneβimplant fit [ 16 , 17 ]. Studies have shown encouraging results with CIM TKA regarding knee alignment [ 18 , 19 ], improved function [ 20 ] and patient satisfaction [ 21 , 22 ].
