Remplissage for Engaging Hill-Sachs Lesions

Sports MedicineAdvancedCore Procedure

Remplissage for Engaging Hill-Sachs Lesions

Arthroscopic remplissage technique for engaging Hill-Sachs lesions in anterior shoulder instability — glenoid track concept, combined Bankart repair, infraspinatus tenodesis and posterior capsulodesis, indications relative to glenoid bone loss thresholds, complications and rehabilitation

High-yield overview

Arthroscopic posterior capsulodesis and infraspinatus tenodesis to convert an off-track engaging Hill-Sachs lesion to extra-articular | advanced

Surgical Imaging

Critical Decision Points and Exam Traps
Glenoid Track Concept — Off-Track Lesion Definition

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.

Glenoid Bone Loss Threshold — When Remplissage Is Insufficient

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.

Engaging vs Non-Engaging Hill-Sachs — Dynamic Assessment

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.

Bipolar Bone Loss — When Remplissage Alone Fails

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.

Loss of External Rotation — Patient Counselling

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.

Recurrence After Remplissage — Glenoid Bone Loss Underestimation

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.

Mnemonic

T.R.A.C.K.TRACK — Glenoid Track Concept and Decision Making

Mnemonic

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

Evidence

Arthroscopic remplissage with Bankart repair for engaging Hill-Sachs lesions

Level III
Purchase RJ, Wolf EM, Hobgood ER, et al.Arthroscopy
Clinical implication: Established remplissage as a reproducible arthroscopic solution for engaging Hill-Sachs lesions when glenoid bone loss is minimal.
Evidence

Glenoid bone loss and recurrence after Bankart repair with and without remplissage

Level II
Shaha JS, Cook JB, Song DJ, et al.Am J Sports Med
Clinical implication: Supports routine use of the glenoid track concept and remplissage for off-track lesions when glenoid bone loss remains below the critical threshold.
Evidence

Systematic review of remplissage outcomes in anterior shoulder instability

Level III
Lazarides AL, Duchman KR, Ledbetter L, et al.J Shoulder Elbow Surg
Clinical implication: Confirms that remplissage is effective and safe when patient selection adheres to glenoid track principles; warns against use when glenoid bone loss is underestimated.
Evidence

Long-term outcomes of remplissage for engaging Hill-Sachs lesions

Level III
Zhu YM, Lu Y, Zhang J, et al.Am J Sports Med
Clinical implication: Demonstrates durable stability and acceptable range-of-motion outcomes with low arthritis risk when remplissage is performed for appropriate indications.

Clinical Decision Scenarios

Practise clinical reasoning and management decisions out loud

Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

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.

Practical approach
This patient has an off-track engaging Hill-Sachs lesion with glenoid bone loss below the critical 15-20 percent threshold. My plan is arthroscopic Bankart repair combined with remplissage. **Pre-operative assessment**: The glenoid track width is calculated as 0.83 times the glenoid diameter minus 12 percent bone loss. Because the Hill-Sachs medial margin lies medial to this track margin, the lesion is off-track and will engage. Remplissage is appropriate because glenoid bone loss remains less than 15 percent; Latarjet would be indicated if bone loss exceeded 15-20 percent or if bipolar bone loss were present. **Surgical plan**: Beach-chair position, interscalene block plus general anaesthesia. Standard posterior, anterosuperior and anteroinferior portals. Diagnostic arthroscopy with dynamic engagement test in 90 degrees abduction and full external rotation to confirm engagement. Complete the Bankart repair first using three double-loaded anchors on the glenoid face at the 3, 4 and 5 o'clock positions, restoring the anterior labral bumper. Then prepare the Hill-Sachs lesion by debriding the base to bleeding bone. Place two double-loaded anchors in the defect base. Pass sutures through the posterior capsule and infraspinatus tendon 1 cm lateral to the defect margin. Tie the sutures to tenodese the infraspinatus into the defect, converting the lesion to extra-articular. Reassess dynamic engagement to confirm the filled defect no longer engages. Close portals and place in sling with abduction pillow. **Post-operative**: Protect the tenodesis with limited external rotation for 6 weeks. Progressive rehabilitation with return to contact sport at 6 months if criteria met. **Rationale**: Remplissage addresses the humeral defect while Bankart repair restores anterior labral stability. The combination has greater than 90 percent success in preventing recurrence when glenoid bone loss is below threshold. The patient is counselled regarding expected 5-10 degree external rotation loss, which is usually acceptable for a rugby player.
Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

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?

Practical approach
This patient has failed combined Bankart and remplissage despite appropriate initial indications. Recurrent instability after remplissage most commonly results from either anchor failure, inadequate tissue quality, or an underestimated initial glenoid bone loss that has progressed. **Assessment**: Obtain updated 3D CT to confirm current glenoid bone loss (still 10 percent) and MRI to assess labral and capsular integrity and the status of the remplissage tenodesis. Perform a thorough examination under anaesthesia and diagnostic arthroscopy. **Findings likely**: Either the remplissage tenodesis has failed (infraspinatus not securely healed into the defect) or the Bankart repair has stretched or re-torn. Because glenoid bone loss remains below 15 percent, revision soft-tissue surgery is reasonable. **Surgical plan**: Revision arthroscopy. Assess the Hill-Sachs defect and the integrity of the previous tenodesis. If the defect is again engaging, repeat remplissage with fresh anchors and more robust tissue capture. If the Bankart repair has failed, perform revision labral repair or capsular shift. If tissue quality is poor, consider adding a rotator interval closure or considering Latarjet even with borderline bone loss. **Alternative**: If the patient is a high-demand athlete or has poor tissue quality, discuss conversion to Latarjet as a more definitive bony stabilisation procedure even though glenoid bone loss is 10 percent. **Rationale**: Failed remplissage does not automatically mandate Latarjet when glenoid bone loss remains low. Revision soft-tissue surgery can succeed if the technical reasons for failure are addressed. However, the patient must be counselled that each subsequent soft-tissue procedure carries diminishing returns and that Latarjet remains the gold-standard revision option when recurrence occurs after remplissage.
Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

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?

Practical approach
A 15-degree external rotation deficit at 6 months is greater than the typical 5-10 degree loss expected after remplissage and warrants active management. **Assessment**: Measure active and passive external rotation in 90 degrees abduction and in adduction. Assess for posterior capsular tightness or overtensioned tenodesis. Obtain radiographs to confirm anchor position and joint congruity. Perform a diagnostic subacromial and glenohumeral injection to differentiate pain-limited versus mechanically limited motion. **Management**: If the deficit is primarily due to posterior capsular tightness, institute aggressive physiotherapy with posterior capsule stretching and sleeper stretches. If the tenodesis itself is overtensioned and limiting motion, consider arthroscopic release of the tenodesis sutures or takedown of the infraspinatus tenodesis after counselling the patient about the risk of recurrent instability. **Overhead athlete considerations**: For an overhead tennis player, even 10-15 degrees of external rotation loss can affect serve mechanics and performance. Pre-operative counselling for overhead athletes should have included this risk and the possibility that remplissage may not be the optimal procedure. **Long-term options**: If conservative measures fail and the deficit remains functionally limiting, arthroscopic capsular release or selective tenodesis release may be offered. The patient must accept the small but real risk of recurrent instability after any release. Alternative procedures such as Latarjet with bone block placement that preserves external rotation may be discussed for future consideration if instability recurs. **Rationale**: Most patients adapt to the modest external rotation loss after remplissage. Overhead athletes are the exception and require individualised counselling and potentially more aggressive rehabilitation or revision to optimise terminal external rotation.
Exam day cheat sheet
Remplissage for Engaging Hill-Sachs Lesions — Exam Day Summary

References

Evidence

The glenoid track concept and its clinical application

Level III
Di Giacomo G, Itoi E, Burkhart SSJ Shoulder Elbow Surg
Evidence

Arthroscopic remplissage with Bankart repair for engaging Hill-Sachs lesions

Level III
Purchase RJ, Wolf EM, Hobgood ER, et al.Arthroscopy
Evidence

Glenoid bone loss and recurrence after Bankart repair with and without remplissage

Level II
Shaha JS, Cook JB, Song DJ, et al.Am J Sports Med
Evidence

Systematic review of remplissage outcomes in anterior shoulder instability

Level III
Lazarides AL, Duchman KR, Ledbetter L, et al.J Shoulder Elbow Surg
Evidence

Long-term outcomes of remplissage for engaging Hill-Sachs lesions

Level III
Zhu YM, Lu Y, Zhang J, et al.Am J Sports Med
Editorially reviewed — transparent references and correction processPublished by OrthoVellum Medical Education TeamEditorial boardMethodologyReview policy
Educational disclosure

Educational content is reviewed for source visibility, editorial coherence, and correction readiness.

No individual clinician credential is claimed unless a named person is shown.

Verify before clinical use; this is not medical advice or a substitute for local guidance.