Escalating health care expenditure worldwide is driving the need for effective resource decision-making, with medical practitioners increasingly making complex resource decisions within the context of patient care. Despite raising serious legal and ethical issues in practice, this has attracted little attention in Australia, or internationally. In particular, it is unknown how orthopaedic surgeons perceive their obligations to the individual patient, and the wider community, when rationing care, and how they reconcile competing obligations. This research explores legal and ethical considerations, and resource allocation by Australian orthopaedic surgeons, as a means of achieving public health cost containment driven by macro-level policy and funding decisions. This research found that Australian orthopaedic surgeon's perceptions, and resource allocation decision making, can be explained by understanding how principles of distributive justice challenge, and shift, the traditional medical paradigm. It found that distributive justice, and challenges of macro level health policy and funding decisions, have given rise to two new medical paradigms. Each which try to balance the best interests of individual patients with demands in respect of the sustainability of the health system, in a situation where resources may be constrained. This research shows that while bedside rationing has positioned the medical profession as the gate keepers of resources, it may have left them straddling an increasingly irreconcilable void between the interests of the individual patient and the wider community, with the sustainability of the health system hanging in the balance

Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is the most common paediatric hip condition and is a major cause of hip replacement or osteoarthritis in young adults. Due to potential impact on quality of life, every child is checked at birth for unstable hips. Should instability be detected, or the infant has other DDH risk factors, they are referred for an ultrasound exam and orthopaedic surgeon consultation. Since the implementation of a DDH screening program at our institution, the Radiology Department has seen a dramatic increase in hip ultrasounds performed. While helping prevent the complications of missed DDH diagnoses, this program has placed strain on radiology resources, and often families must attend multiple appointments before receiving a diagnosis and beginning treatment. To mitigate this, we have implemented a pilot point-of-care DDH clinic, where an ultrasound technician performs hip ultrasound exams using a portable ultrasound in the orthopaedic clinic in conjunction with surgeon consultation. The aim of this clinic is to enable diagnosis and treatment in one appointment, reduce referral-to-treatment delays, wait times, and decrease costs and travel time for families while also alleviating strain on radiology resources. A point-of-care DDH test clinic was implemented in the Orthopaedic Department at our institution. Patients referred with suspected/confirmed DDH attended a single orthopaedic clinic appointment. An ultrasound technician was present to perform scans in conjunction with the orthopaedic surgeon's clinical assessment. Surveys were distributed at the end of the appointment to collect feedback on the family's satisfaction with the program, as well as other pertinent demographic information (i.e. occupation, geographic location, travel time to hospital). To date, 40 patients have attended the pilot clinic. Families spent an average 61.3 minutes (range 15–420 minutes) traveling to the hospital for an appointment (122.6 minutes round-trip). This program reduced the number of hospital visits for DDH screening from three (initial consultation, radiology, follow-up) to one per patient, saving an average 245.2 minutes of travel time to/from the hospital per family. Appointment time averaged 35.9 minutes and families rated their satisfaction with appointment length an average of 9.6/10 (35/40 families rated satisfaction 10/10, 1 = very unsatisfied, 10 = very satisfied). Additionally, 33/40 families were also asked to rate their satisfaction with check-in/check-out processes (average 9.4/10), ultrasound screening (average 9.9/10), and time with specialist (average 9.9/10). Satisfaction scores did not differ based on variables such as survey taker's gender, occupation, or geographic location. The pilot point-of-care ultrasound DDH clinic has considerably reduced the number of clinic visits and travel time for families, reduced aggregate clinic wait times, and has resulted in high family satisfaction. This specialized clinic may have potential to free up hospital staff time and resources, possibly decreasing wait times in other clinical areas, ultimately improving quality of care for patients and families across our institution

Although the introduction of ultraporous metals in the forms of acetabular components and augments has substantially improved the orthopaedic surgeon's ability to reconstruct severely compromised acetabuli, there remain some revision THAs that are beyond the scope of cups, augments, and cages. In situations involving catastrophic bone loss, allograft-prosthetic composites or custom acetabular components may be considered. Custom components offer the potential advantages of immediate, rigid fixation with a superior fit individualised to each patient. These custom triflange components require a preoperative CT scan with three-dimensional (3-D) reconstruction using rapid prototyping technology, which has evolved substantially during the past decade. The surgeon can fine-tune exact component positioning, determine location and length of screws, modify the fixation surface with, for example, the addition of hydroxyapatite, and dictate which screws will be locked to enhance fixation. The general indications for using custom triflange components include: (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. We previously reported on our center's experience with 23 patients (24 hips) treated with custom triflange components with minimum 2-year follow-up. This method of reconstruction was used in a cohort of patients with Paprosky Type 3B acetabular defects, which represented 3% (30 of 955) of the acetabular revisions we performed during the study period of 2003 to 2012. At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years (range, 2.3 – 9 years) there were four subsequent surgical interventions: two failures secondary to sepsis, and one stem revision and one open reduction internal fixation for periprosthetic femoral fracture. There were two minor complications managed nonoperatively, but all of the components were noted to be well-fixed with no obvious migration or loosening observed on the most recent radiographs. Harris hip scores improved from a mean of 42 (SD ±16) before surgery to 65 (SD ±18) at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). More recently, we participated in a multi-center study of 95 patients treated with reconstruction using custom triflange components who had a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Pelvic defects included Paprosky Type 2C, 3A, 3B and pelvic discontinuity. Concomitant femoral revision was performed in 21 hips. Implants used a mean of 12 screws with 3 locking screws. Twenty of 95 patients (21%) experienced at least one complication, including 6% dislocation, 6% infection, and 2% femoral-related issues. Implants were ultimately removed in 11% of hips. One hip was revised for possible component loosening. Survivorship with aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 99%. Custom acetabular triflange components represent yet another tool in the reconstructive surgeon's armamentarium. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss, achieving reliable fixation. Clinical results are inferior to both primary THA and more routine revision THA. Patients and surgeons should be aware of the increased complications associated with these complex hip revisions

Although the introduction of ultraporous metals in the forms of acetabular components and augments has substantially improved the orthopaedic surgeon's ability to reconstruct severely compromised acetabuli, there remain some revision THAs that are beyond the scope of cups, augments, and cages. In situations involving catastrophic bone loss, allograft-prosthetic composites or custom acetabular components may be considered. Custom components offer the potential advantages of immediate, rigid fixation with a superior fit individualised to each patient. These custom triflange components require a pre-operative CT scan with 3-D reconstruction using rapid prototyping technology. The surgeon can fine-tune exact component positioning, determine location and length of screws, modify the fixation surface with, for example, the addition of hydroxyapatite, and dictate which screws will be locked to enhance fixation. The general indications for using custom triflange components include: (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. The general indications for using custom triflange components include: (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. We previously reported on our center's experience with 23 patients (24 hips) treated with custom triflange components with minimum 2-year follow-up. This method of reconstruction was used in a cohort of patients with Paprosky Type 3B acetabular defects, which represented 3% (30 of 955) of the acetabular revisions we performed during the study period of 2003 to 2012. At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years (range, 2.3–9 years) there were 4 subsequent surgical interventions: 2 failures secondary to sepsis, and 1 stem revision and 1 open reduction internal fixation for periprosthetic femoral fracture. There were two minor complications managed non-operatively, but all of the components were noted to be well-fixed with no obvious migration or loosening observed on the most recent radiographs. Harris Hip Scores improved from a mean of 42 (SD ±16) before surgery to 65 (SD ±18) at latest follow-up (p<0.001). More recently, we participated in a multi-center study of 95 patients treated with reconstruction using custom triflange components w a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Pelvic defects included Paprosky Type 2C, 3A, 3B and pelvic discontinuity. Concomitant femoral revision was performed in 21 hips. Implants used a mean of 12 screws with 3 locking screws. Twenty of 95 patients (21%) experienced at least one complication, including 6% dislocation, 6% infection, and 2% femoral-related issues. Implants were ultimately removed in 11% of hips. One hip was revised for possible component loosening. Survivorship with aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 99%. Custom acetabular triflange components represent yet another tool in the reconstructive surgeon's armamentarium. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss, achieving reliable fixation. Clinical results are inferior to both primary THA and more routine revision THA. Patients and surgeons should be aware of the increased complications associated with these complex hip revisions

Fresh-frozen allograft bone is frequently used in orthopaedic surgery. We investigated the incidence of allograft-related infection and analysed the outcomes of recipients of bacterial culture-positive allografts from our single-institute bone bank during bone transplantation. The fresh-frozen allografts were harvested in a strict sterile environment during total joint arthroplasty surgery and immediately stored in a freezer at −78° to −68° C after packing. Between January 2007 and December 2012, 2024 patients received 2083 allografts with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The overall allograft-associated infection rate was 1.2% (24/2024). Swab cultures of 2083 allografts taken before implantation revealed 21 (1.0%) positive findings. The 21 recipients were given various antibiotics at the individual orthopaedic surgeon's discretion. At the latest follow-up, none of these 21 recipients displayed clinical signs of infection following treatment. Based on these findings, we conclude that an incidental positive culture finding for allografts does not correlate with subsequent surgical site infection. Additional prolonged post-operative antibiotic therapy may not be necessary for recipients of fresh-frozen bone allograft with positive culture findings. Chang Gung Medical Foundation

Although the introduction of ultraporous metals in the forms of acetabular components and augments has substantially improved the orthopaedic surgeon's ability to reconstruct severely compromised acetabuli, there remain some revision THAs that are beyond the scope of cups, augments, and cages. In situations involving catastrophic bone loss, allograft-prosthetic composites or custom acetabular components may be considered. Custom components offer the potential advantages of immediate, rigid fixation with a superior fit individualised to each patient. These custom triflange components require a pre-operative CT scan with three-dimensional (3-D) reconstruction using rapid prototyping technology, which has evolved substantially during the past decade. The surgeon can fine-tune exact component positioning, determine location and length of screws, modify the fixation surface with, for example, the addition of hydroxyapatite, and dictate which screws will be locked to enhance fixation. The general indications for using custom triflange components include: (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. The general indications for using custom triflange components include: (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. We previously reported on our center's experience with 23 patients (24 hips) treated with custom triflange components with minimum 2-year follow-up. This method of reconstruction was used in a cohort of patients with Paprosky Type 3B acetabular defects, which represented 3% (30 of 955) of the acetabular revisions we performed during the study period of 2003 to 2012. At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years (range, 2.3–9 years) there were 4 subsequent surgical interventions: 2 failures secondary to sepsis, and 1 stem revision and 1 open reduction internal fixation for periprosthetic femoral fracture. There were 2 minor complications managed nonoperatively, but all of the components were noted to be well-fixed with no obvious migration or loosening observed on the most recent radiographs. Harris hip scores improved from a mean of 42 (SD ± 16) before surgery to 65 (SD ± 18) at latest follow-up (p<0.001). More recently, we participated in a multi-center study of 95 patients treated with reconstruction using custom triflange components who had a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Pelvic defects included Paprosky Type 2C, 3A, 3B and pelvic discontinuity. Concomitant femoral revision was performed in 21 hips. Implants used a mean of 12 screws with 3 locking screws. Twenty of 95 patients (21%) experienced at least one complication, including 6% dislocation, 6% infection, and 2% femoral-related issues. Implants were ultimately removed in 11% of hips. One hip was revised for possible component loosening. Survivorship with aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 99%,. Custom acetabular triflange components represent yet another tool in the reconstructive surgeon's armamentarium. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss, achieving reliable fixation. Clinical results are inferior to both primary THA and more routine revision THA. Patients and surgeons should be aware of the increased complications associated with these complex hip revisions

Introduction. Sonicate fluid cultures (SFC) are more sensitive than conventional microbiological methods in identifying periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), because sonication enables a sampling of the causative bacteria directly from the surface of the endoprosthetic components. Because of their high sensitivity SFC can be positive while all other microbiological methods remain negative. It is therefore difficult to interpret a single SFC as being truly or falsely positive. The aim of this prospective study was to improve the interpretation of SFC in the diagnosis of PJI in patients after total hip arthroplasty through the use of multiple SFC. Material and methods. 102 patients of which 37 had a defined PJI according to the following criteria were included: intraarticular pus or a sinus tract, a periprosthetic membrane (PM) indicative of infection, or a positive microbiological culture in a minimum of 2 separate microbiological samples. A single positive microbiological sample was classified as false positive. In 35 patients multiple SFC were acquired from the separate endoprosthetic components. Results. Out of all individual diagnostic parameters SFC achieved the highest sensitivity with 89% and a specificity of 72%. PM was able to achieve a sensitivity of 78% for the detection of PJI. Out of the 35 patients with multiple SFC it was possible to newly diagnose a PJI in 3 cases solely through multiple isolations of the same bacterial species in SFC. In the same group it was also possible to exclude the suspicion of PJI in 3 cases, because only one of the multiple samples presented a bacterial isolation, while the other samples remained negative. When multiple SFC were employed it was possible to increase the sensitivity to 100% and the specificity to 85%. Conclusion. In our study SFC were the most sensitive diagnostic parameter for detection of PJI and our results show that it is possible to further increase the sensitivity and specificity of SFC when multiple samples are used. The acquisition of multiple SFC facilitate the diagnosis of PJI, since they are able to present the 2 positive bacterial isolations that are needed for making the diagnosis of PJI. Multiple SFC can help to solve the orthopaedic surgeon's diagnostic dilemma of having to interpret a single positive bacterial isolation by confirming the bacterial isolation in a second SFC sample