Survivorship of anatomic press-fit short-stem radial head replacement with a pyrocarbon bearing.

Background: Restoring the radial head as a stabiliser of the elbow is considered important in cases where there is an associated bony or ligamentous injury. A variety of radial head prostheses are available. There are no reports of the survivorship of a short-stem press-fit radial head prostheses with pyrocarbon bearing. Patients and methods: With institutional review board approval, a retrospective case-note analysis was performed of a consecutive single-surgeon case series of the Integra LifeScience pyrocarbon radial head prostheses (Carbon Modular Radial Head) from October 2010 to October 2019 in a tertiary referral centre. The series was divided into acute trauma and salvage cohorts. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was conducted. Results: 36 patients were included, 23 (64%) for acute injuries and 13 (36%) for failed initial treatment. Of the acute injuries, 20 (87%) had a Wrightington type-C elbow fracture-dislocation. Reoperation was performed in 4 (11%) patients; 10 (28%) had possible loosening on radiographs. The implant survival rate was 94% at shortest follow-up of 17 months (mean 70 months). Discussion: Treatment of complex radial head fractures using a pyrocarbon-bearing, anatomic press-fit design provides satisfactory short-term survivorship in this case series. The implant should be used with caution in salvage cases, due to higher rates of loosening seen in this cohort.

A review of the New Zealand National Joint Registry to compare the outcomes of Coonrad-Morrey and Latitude total elbow arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Total elbow arthroplasty has traditionally been used in the treatment of inflammatory arthropathy patients. More and more, however, its use is expanding to include acute trauma and sequelae of trauma. In New Zealand, the most commonly used prosthesis is the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis, but the Latitude prosthesis has gained in popularity, with a 3-fold increase in implantation over the past 5 years. METHODS: Prospectively collected national joint registry data were used to compare the survival rates of these prostheses. Underlying diagnoses, reasons for revision, and patient-reported outcome measures, as well as patient age and exact implants used, were all recorded. Statistical analysis involved survival analysis using Kaplan-Meier curves and the paired Student t test. RESULTS: Over the 18-year study interval, the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis has shown consistently lower revision rates than the Latitude prosthesis. This was true for both the linked and unlinked Latitude prostheses and was not affected by radial head replacement or underlying diagnosis. In all cases, the risk of revision for the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis was reduced by at least 65% compared with the Latitude prosthesis. CONCLUSION: This study using New Zealand Joint Registry data shows a lower failure rate of the Coonrad-Morrey elbow prosthesis compared with the Latitude prosthesis. The hazard ratio for a revision procedure for the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis compared with the Latitude prosthesis was 0.28 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.55). This lower rate was evident irrespective of linkage and radial head replacement. The reason for the lower rate of revision with the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis is likely multifactorial, but perhaps when used by lower-volume surgeons, the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis may confer better implant longevity.