Skip to main content
What Are the Effects of Remplissage on 6-Month Strength and Range of Motion After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair? A Multicenter Cohort Study.
- Frantz, Travis L;
- Everhart, Joshua S;
- Cvetanovich, Gregory L;
- Neviaser, Andrew;
- Jones, Grant L;
- Hettrich, Carolyn M;
- Wolf, Brian R;
- MOON Shoulder Group;
- Bishop, Julie;
- Miller, Bruce;
- Brophy, Robert H;
- Ma, C Benjamin;
- Cox, Charlie L;
- Baumgarten, Keith M;
- Feeley, Brian T;
- Zhang, Alan L;
- McCarty, Eric C;
- Kuhn, John E
- et al.
Published Web Locationhttps://doi.org/10.1177/2325967120903283
BackgroundPatients who have undergone shoulder instability surgery are often allowed to return to sports, work, and high-level activity based largely on a time-based criterion of 6 months postoperatively. However, some believe that advancing activity after surgery should be dependent on the return of strength and range of motion (ROM).
HypothesisThere will be a significant loss of strength or ROM at 6 months after arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage compared with Bankart repair alone.
Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
MethodsA total of 38 patients in a prospective multicenter study underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (33 males, 5 females; mean age, 27.0 ± 10.2 years; 82% with ≥2 dislocation events in the past year). Strength and ROM were assessed preoperatively and at 6 months after surgery. Results were compared with 104 matched patients who had undergone Bankart repair without remplissage, although all had radiographic evidence of a Hill-Sachs defect.
ResultsAt 6 months, there were no patients in the remplissage group with anterior apprehension on physical examination. However, 26% had a ≥20° external rotation (ER) deficit with the elbow at the side, 42% had a ≥20° ER deficit with the elbow at 90° of abduction, and 5% had persistent weakness. Compared with matched patients who underwent only arthroscopic Bankart repair, the remplissage group had greater humeral bone loss and had a greater likelihood of a ≥20° ER deficit with the elbow at 90° of abduction (P = .004). Risk factors for a ≥20° ER deficit with the elbow at 90° of abduction were preoperative stiffness in the same plane (P = .02), while risk factors for a ≥20° ER deficit with the elbow at the side were increased number of inferior quadrant glenoid anchors (P = .003), increased patient age (P = .02), and preoperative side-to-side deficits in ER (P = .04). The only risk factor for postoperative ER weakness was preoperative ER weakness (P = .04), with no association with remplissage (P = .26).
ConclusionArthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage did not result in significant strength deficits but increased the risk of ER stiffness in abduction compared with Bankart repair without remplissage at short-term follow-up.
Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
Fast Web View:
Preparing document for printing…