Arthroscopic posterior capsulodesis and infraspinatus tenodesis to convert an off-track engaging Hill-Sachs lesion to extra-articular | advanced
Surgical Imaging
The trap: Treating every Hill-Sachs lesion with remplissage without calculating the glenoid track — many Hill-Sachs lesions are on-track and do not engage; remplissage is unnecessary and may cause unnecessary loss of external rotation.
The fix: Use the Di Giacomo formula: glenoid track width = 0.83 times glenoid diameter minus glenoid bone loss width. If the medial margin of the Hill-Sachs lesion lies medial to the glenoid track margin, the lesion is off-track (engaging) and remplissage is indicated when glenoid bone loss remains less than 15-20 percent.
Location: When glenoid bone loss exceeds 15-20 percent, the glenoid track is narrowed sufficiently that even a filled Hill-Sachs lesion may still engage or the overall bony stability is compromised.
Risk: Isolated remplissage in the setting of greater than 15-20 percent glenoid bone loss carries recurrence rates of 20-40 percent; the patient requires bony augmentation (Latarjet) rather than soft-tissue remplissage alone.
Clinical decision: Measure glenoid bone loss on 3D CT (best-fit circle method or Pico method). If bone loss is greater than 15-20 percent or bipolar bone loss with off-track lesion exists, proceed to Latarjet rather than remplissage.
Location: Not every Hill-Sachs lesion engages; engagement is a dynamic phenomenon that occurs in abduction-external rotation.
Risk: Static imaging alone overestimates engagement. An on-track lesion may appear large but never engages because the glenoid track covers it during motion.
Fix: Perform dynamic arthroscopic assessment in the beach-chair position with the arm in 90 degrees abduction and full external rotation. Visualise whether the Hill-Sachs lesion engages the anterior glenoid rim. Only off-track engaging lesions require remplissage.
Deformity combination: Significant glenoid bone loss (greater than 15 percent) plus an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion constitutes bipolar bone loss. The combined defects narrow the glenoid track dramatically.
Implication: Remplissage addresses only the humeral defect. When glenoid bone loss is substantial, the glenoid track remains too narrow even after remplissage; recurrence risk is high.
Recommendation: In bipolar bone loss with off-track lesion, Latarjet or other glenoid bony augmentation is required. Remplissage may be added as an adjunct in selected cases but is not the primary solution.
Why different: Remplissage tenodeses the infraspinatus into the defect, effectively shifting the posterior capsule and tendon medially. This reduces the arc of external rotation by approximately 5-10 degrees in most series.
Implications: Overhead athletes and throwers may notice the deficit more than non-overhead patients. Pre-operative counselling must include this expected limitation; patients who require full terminal external rotation for sport or occupation may need alternative procedures.
Management: Document pre-operative external rotation range. Counsel that the deficit is usually well tolerated for activities of daily living and non-overhead sport but may affect elite overhead performance.
Kanavel equivalent: The most common cause of failure after remplissage is underestimation of glenoid bone loss. The procedure does not restore glenoid bone stock.
Trigger equivalent: If recurrence occurs, obtain repeat 3D CT to quantify glenoid bone loss accurately. Many apparent remplissage failures are actually cases where glenoid bone loss exceeded the 15-20 percent threshold and Latarjet should have been performed.
Never inject or ignore: Failed remplissage with substantial glenoid bone loss requires revision to Latarjet or other bony procedure; repeat soft-tissue surgery has low success.
T.R.A.C.K.TRACK — Glenoid Track Concept and Decision Making
H.I.L.L.-S.A.C.H.S.HILL-SACHS — Operative Decision Framework
Surgical Indications
Absolute Indications
- Anterior shoulder instability with an off-track (engaging) Hill-Sachs lesion on dynamic arthroscopic assessment
- Glenoid bone loss less than 15-20 percent confirmed on 3D CT
- Recurrent dislocations or subluxations despite appropriate non-operative management or after failed Bankart repair without significant glenoid bone loss
- Patient preference for arthroscopic soft-tissue procedure over open bony augmentation when glenoid bone loss is minimal
Relative Indications
- On-track Hill-Sachs lesion that becomes engaging after Bankart repair (rare intraoperative finding)
- Contact or collision athlete with minimal glenoid bone loss who wishes to avoid Latarjet hardware
- Revision surgery after failed soft-tissue stabilisation where glenoid bone loss remains below threshold
Contraindications
Absolute:
- Glenoid bone loss greater than 15-20 percent (Latarjet or other bony augmentation required)
- Bipolar bone loss with off-track lesion (combined glenoid and humeral defects require bony glenoid restoration)
- Glenoid bone loss of any magnitude with an inverted-pear glenoid morphology
- Active infection or uncontrolled medical comorbidity precluding surgery
Relative:
- Overhead throwing athlete in whom even 5-10 degrees of external rotation loss would be career-limiting (consider alternative procedures)
- Significant glenoid dysplasia or version abnormality requiring bony correction
- Patient inability to comply with post-operative rehabilitation protocol
Evidence for Glenoid Track Concept and Remplissage
Glenoid Track and On-Track / Off-Track Lesions
- The glenoid track concept, introduced by Di Giacomo, Itoi and colleagues, defines the zone of contact between the glenoid and humeral head during abduction-external rotation
- An off-track Hill-Sachs lesion engages the anterior glenoid rim because its medial margin lies medial to the glenoid track margin
- The formula for glenoid track width is 0.83 times the glenoid diameter minus the width of glenoid bone loss
- Multiple validation studies have confirmed that off-track lesions have significantly higher recurrence rates after isolated Bankart repair compared with on-track lesions
Remplissage Outcomes
- Arthroscopic remplissage combined with Bankart repair achieves recurrence rates of 5-10 percent in appropriately selected patients with engaging Hill-Sachs lesions and glenoid bone loss less than 15 percent
- Systematic reviews report mean loss of external rotation of 5-10 degrees, which is usually well tolerated
- Patient-reported outcomes (WOSI, Rowe, ASES) improve significantly and are comparable to Latarjet in low-glenoid-bone-loss cohorts
- Remplissage does not restore glenoid bone stock; failure rates rise sharply when glenoid bone loss exceeds 15-20 percent
Remplissage versus Latarjet — Decision Framework
Key Evidence
Arthroscopic remplissage with Bankart repair for engaging Hill-Sachs lesions
Glenoid bone loss and recurrence after Bankart repair with and without remplissage
Systematic review of remplissage outcomes in anterior shoulder instability
Long-term outcomes of remplissage for engaging Hill-Sachs lesions
Clinical Decision Scenarios
Practise clinical reasoning and management decisions out loud
“A 28-year-old rugby player presents with recurrent anterior shoulder dislocations. 3D CT shows 12 percent glenoid bone loss and a large Hill-Sachs lesion whose medial margin lies 4 mm medial to the calculated glenoid track margin. Describe your surgical plan and the reasoning behind your choice of procedure.”
“A 22-year-old university student underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage 18 months ago for an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion with 10 percent glenoid bone loss. She now presents with recurrent instability after a new traumatic dislocation during a fall. CT shows the previous anchors in position and glenoid bone loss still measuring 10 percent. How do you manage this patient?”
“A 35-year-old overhead recreational tennis player is 6 months post remplissage and Bankart repair. He has full forward flexion and abduction but lacks the final 15 degrees of external rotation compared with his contralateral shoulder. He reports difficulty serving and is concerned about his return to competitive play. How do you counsel and manage him?”