Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 2, pp 422–429

Should We Worry About Periacetabular Interference Gaps in Hip Resurfacing?

Authors

  • Bruno Gomes
    • Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of SurgerySt Michael’s Hospital
  • Michael Olsen
    • Martin Orthopaedic Biomechanics LaboratorySt Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute
  • Michael Donnelly
    • Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of SurgerySt Michael’s Hospital
  • Ashesh Kumar
    • Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of SurgerySt Michael’s Hospital
    • Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of SurgerySt Michael’s Hospital
Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Hip Society

DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2665-0

Cite this article as:
Gomes, B., Olsen, M., Donnelly, M. et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res (2013) 471: 422. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2665-0

Abstract

Background

Press-fit acetabular component seating in hip resurfacing can be challenging as a strong interference fit is required. It has not been established whether reducing the acetabular underream minimizes incomplete component seating or leads to increased acetabular loosening.

Questions/purposes

We examined (1) the incidence and natural history of postoperative interference gaps in hip resurfacing and (2) whether reduction of the acetabular underream from 2 mm to 1 mm reduces the incidence of periacetabular interference gaps.

Methods

Of 327 Birmingham Hip™ Resurfacings (Smith & Nephew Inc, Memphis, TN, USA) performed by a single surgeon from 2005 to 2010, we evaluated 306 hips with a minimum 1-year radiographic followup. Postoperative periacetabular interference gaps were monitored for radiographic gap resolution at latest followup. The frequency of incomplete component seating was compared between acetabula prepared with 1- and 2-mm underream techniques. Minimum followup was 1 year (mean, 2.7 years; range, 1–6 years).

Results

Fifty-one percent of the postoperative radiographs demonstrated the presence of a periacetabular interference gap. At latest followup, 96% of these gaps were no longer visible. We observed a reduction in the number of interference gaps identified when acetabular preparation changed from a 2-mm underream (63%) to a 1-mm underream (39%). There were no revisions due to acetabular failure.

Conclusions

Periacetabular interference gaps were common in this series but not associated with acetabular component failure. The use of a 1-mm underream is sufficient for adequate short-term press-fit fixation of the acetabular component in Birmingham Hip™ Resurfacing arthroplasty.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2012