The Dallas Limb Restoration Center

ConforMIS Personalized Total Knee Implants

ConforMIS Personalized Total Knee Implants

Patients Have Reported Dissatisfaction With Traditional TKR

1 in 5 patients are not satisfied with the results of their total knee replacement.1

ConforMIS patient-specific implants are intended to address some of the leading causes of patient dissatisfaction.

LEADING CAUSES OF DISSATISFACTION

Residual Pain due to improper fit and rotation

Functional Limitations due to altered kinematics and instability

Early Implant Failure due to poor alignment and polyethylene wear

ITotal® G2 Total Knee Replacement System

Designed to address some of the leading causes of patient dissatisfaction

  • Designed for each individual based on your anatomy
  • Customized fit and alignment avoids sizing compromises common with traditional off-the-shelf implants
  • Designed to follow the shape and contour of each patient’s knee to help restore natural kinematics
  • Designed for optimal bone preservation
  • Cost is similar to standard total knee and covered by many major insurance companies

Individualized Implant Fit

ConforMIS implants fit precisely by using CT scan data to design an implant made for each patient’s own knee.

  • Patient-specific design that virtually eliminates overhang
  • Customized fit for every patient

Individualized Implant Shape

ConforMIS implants match the shape and curvature of a patient’s natural knee.

  • The iTotal has been shown to more closely approximate a patient’s normal range of motion
  • Provides each patient with the potential for a more natural feeling knee

Patient Experiences With ConforMIS

“I had one knee done with an off-the-shelf implant and it still hurts. I had the other knee done with ConforMIS and it’s a world of wonderful.” - Alan Kiel

“ConforMIS made a big, big difference in my life. Now I’m able to do things that I’d stopped being able to do.” - John Lynch, DVM

1. Bourne, et al; Patient Satisfaction after Total Knee Arthroplasty. Who is Satisfied and Who is Not? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research; 2010, 468: 57-63