BackgroundPatella resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty is a contentious issue. The literature suggests that resurfacing of the patella is based on surgeon preference, and little is known about the role and timing of resurfacing and how this affects outcomes.MethodsWe analyzed 134,799 total knee arthroplasties using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hazards ratios (HRs) were used to compare rates of early revision between patella resurfacing at the primary procedure (the resurfacing group, R) and primary arthroplasty without resurfacing (no-resurfacing group, NR). We also analyzed the outcomes of NR that were revised for isolated patella addition.ResultsAt 5 years, the R group showed a lower revision rate than the NR group: cumulative per cent revision (CPR) 3.1% and 4.0%, respectively (HR = 0.75, p < 0.001). Revisions for patellofemoral pain were more common in the NR group (17%) than in the R group (1%), and “patella only” revisions were more common in the NR group (29%) than in the R group (6%). Non-resurfaced knees revised for isolated patella addition had a higher revision rate than patella resurfacing at the primary procedure, with a 4-year CPR of 15% and 2.8%, respectively (HR = 4.1, p < 0.001).InterpretationRates of early revision of primary total knees were higher when the patella was not resurfaced, and suggest that surgeons may be inclined to resurface later if there is patellofemoral pain. However, 15% of non-resurfaced knees revised for patella addition are re-revised by 4 years. Our results suggest an early beneficial outcome for patella resurfacing at primary arthroplasty based on revision rates up to 5 years.

We show for the first time that ex vivo genetic manipulation of HSCs to express proinsulin II followed by transplantation to NOD mice can establish molecular chimerism and protect from destructive insulitis in an antigen-specific manner.

Introduction: Incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) in diagnostic medical imaging reports has the potential to improve efficiency. Although perception of radiologists, radiographers, medical students and patients on AI use in image reporting has been explored, there is limited literature on nonradiologist clinicians' opinion on this topic. Method: Single-centre online survey targeting non-radiologist medical staff conducted from May to August 2021 at a tertiary referral hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Survey questions revolved around clinicians' level of comfort acting on AI-generated reports with varying levels of radiologist involvement and scan complexity, opinion on medicolegal responsibility for erroneous AI-issued reports and perception of data privacy and security. Results: Eighty-eight responses were collected, including 47.9% of consultants. Non-radiologist clinicians across all seniorities and specialties felt significantly less comfortable acting on AI-issued reports compared with radiologist-issued reports (mean comfort radiologist 6.44/7, mean comfort AI 3.35/7, P < 0.001) but felt equally comfortable with an AI-hybrid model of care (mean comfort hybrid 6.38/7, P = 0.676). Non-radiologist clinicians believed that medicolegal responsibility with errors in AI-issued reports mostly lay with hospitals or health service providers (65.9%) and radiologists (54.5%). Regarding data privacy and security, non-radiologist clinicians felt significantly less comfortable with AI issuing image reports instead of radiologists (P < 0.001). Conclusion: A hybrid AI-generated radiologist-confirmed method of image reporting may be the ideal way of integrating AI into clinical practice based on the perception of our referring non-radiologist medical colleagues. Formal guidelines on medicolegal responsibility and data privacy should be established prior to utilising AI in the clinical setting.

Introduction: Uterine fibroids have the potential to cause morbidity, and there is a substantial cost to both the healthcare system and society. There is support for minimally invasive intervention, and uterine fibroid embolisation (UFE) is an established cost-effective option for women wishing for an alternative to surgery. There is a lack of local Australian costing data to compliment use in the public hospital system, and we offer a costing analysis of running a public hospital service. Methods: We reviewed the costs for 10 sequential uterine fibroid embolisation cases, by assessing the direct and indirect hospital costs. Results: The total cost of providing a uterine fibroid embolisation service using our model in a public hospital including initial outpatient assessment, procedure costs, overnight hospital ward stay and outpatient follow-up is $3995 per admission.Conclusion: Using our model, the overall cost to perform this procedure is low, and lower than prior estimates for surgical alternatives. We encourage government and regulatory bodies to support UFE through guidelines and remuneration models, and encourage more public Australian interventional radiology departments to offer this service.