Does hospital setting influence shoulder replacement revision rate? A national comparison of outcomes between private and public settings.

BACKGROUND: Australian healthcare relies on both private and public sectors to meet the demand for surgical care. Rapid growth of shoulder replacement surgery highlights a disparity in service provision, with two-thirds occurring privately. This study aimed to assess the influence of hospital setting on shoulder replacement revision rate at a national level. METHODS: All primary shoulder replacements recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from April 2004 to December 2020 were included. Private and public settings were compared for stemmed total shoulder replacement (sTSR) for osteoarthritis (OA), reverse total shoulder replacement (rTSR) for OA/cuff arthropathy (CA), and rTSR for fracture. The primary outcome was cumulative percent revision (CPR), with Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to determine differences between private and public hospitals, recorded as hazard ratios (HR). Secondary analyses investigated differences between hospital settings, targeting hospital outliers for revision and prosthesis selection. RESULTS: Primary sTSR (OA) demonstrated a higher revision rate in private hospitals compared to public hospitals (HR = 1.27; P = 0.001), as did rTSR (OA/CA) after 3 months (HR = 1.33; P = 0.003). However, no significant difference was observed for primary rTSR (fracture) (HR = 1.10; P = 0.484). Restricting rTSR (OA/CA) to the best performing prosthesis combinations eliminated the difference between private and public outcomes (HR 1.10; P = 0.415). No other secondary analysis altered the primary result. CONCLUSIONS: Differences exist between private and public hospitals for revision rate following primary shoulder replacement. Prosthesis selection accounts for some of the variation. Further analysis into patient specific characteristics is necessary to better understand these disparities.

Retrospective review of pyrocarbon radial head replacement.

Background: Radial head arthroplasty is the preferred surgical management for complex, unreconstructable radial head fractures. There has been increasing use of pyrocarbon prostheses, with potential tribology and modulus advantages over metallic counterparts. This study aims to assess clinical and radiological outcomes for radial head replacement after trauma using a modular, uncemented pyrocarbon prosthesis. Materials and Methods: Between September 2009 and March 2020, a consecutive series of 22 trauma cases were available for review. Patients underwent radial head arthroplasty using a pyrocarbon prosthesis (Ascension Modular Radial Head System, Austin, TX). Recorded outcomes included clinical assessment, radiological evaluation, and patient-reported outcome measures specific to elbow function. Results: Twenty-two patients (7 male, 15 female) with an average age of 51 years (range 21-64) were analyzed with a minimum 12 months of follow-up. All patients had complex radial head fractures, categorized as a Mason 3 or 4 injury. At follow-up, mean elbow range of motion included flexion 130° (range 100°-150°), extension 19° (0-50°), pronation 73° (30°-90°), and supination 70° (10°-90°). The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Index score was 83 (55-100), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score was 22 (2.5-60). Radiological evaluation showed 14 patients with asymptomatic proximal neck resorption and two patients with radiological stem loosening. In total, 3 of 22 implants were revised-2 were excised, and 1 revised to a long stem for traumatic implant fracture. Conclusion: Pyrocarbon radial head arthroplasty provided reliable functional results for patients after unreconstructable radial head fracture. The unique potential for fracture of the prosthesis should be considered in long-term follow-up, with appropriate activity advice to patients.