Arthroscopic Remplissage for Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Biomechanical Studies

PURPOSE: To examine the clinical outcomes and biomechanical data supporting the use of the remplissage procedure. METHODS: A query of the Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines from 2000 to 2017. Data were extracted from included studies for a qualitative review of both clinical and biomechanical outcomes. RESULTS: After review, 18 clinical and 10 biomechanical studies were available for analysis; 10 of 18 clinical studies (55.6%) were Level IV evidence. Within the clinical studies, there were 567 patients (570 shoulders) evaluated with follow-up ranging from 6 to 180 months. Overall, 5.8% of shoulders (33 of 570) displayed recurrent instability after arthroscopic remplissage. Of the shoulders with recurrent instability, 42.4% of shoulders (14 of 33) underwent further surgical management. In all studies evaluating pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcomes, the arthroscopic remplissage procedure improved patient-reported outcomes a statistically significant amount postoperatively. Within individual clinical studies, external rotation with the arm in neutral was the most consistently limited range of motion (ROM) parameter, with deficits compared with the contralateral shoulder ranging from 9° to 14°. Biomechanical analysis appeared to corroborate the clinical results, although significant conclusions were limited by heterogeneity of reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic remplissage performed in conjunction with arthroscopic Bankart repair is a safe and effective procedure for patients with engaging Hill-Sachs lesions and subcritical glenoid bone loss. Although both the included clinical and biomechanical studies would suggest minimal changes in glenohumeral ROM following the remplissage procedure, strong conclusions are limited by the heterogeneity in reporting ROM data and lack of comparative studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review.