Remplissage May Decrease the Redislocation Rate After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair in Patients With an Engaging Hill-Sachs Defect: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies With Minimal 2-Year Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The redislocation rate after arthroscopic Bankart repair (BR) among patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion (HSL) may be reduced with the use of remplissage. Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of adding remplissage to an arthroscopic BR in patients with concomitant HSL. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: PubMed and ScienceDirect databases were searched between February 2022 and April 2023 with the terms “remplissage” and “shoulder instability” according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were formed using the population, intervention, control, and outcome method; the investigation included studies that compared BR with and without remplissage and had ≥24 months of follow-up. Results: From 802 articles found during the initial search, 7 studies with a total of 837 patients—558 receiving isolated BR (BR group) and 279 receiving BR with remplissage (BR+REMP)—were included. The probability of recurrence of instability among patients with an engaging HSL was significantly diminished in the BR+REMP group compared with the BR group (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.24; P < .001). Regarding shoulder range of motion, the BR+REMP group achieved increased forward flexion (mean difference [MD], 1.97°; 95% CI, 1.49° to 2.46°; P < .001) and decreased external rotation in adduction (MD, –1.43°; 95% CI, –2.40° to –0.46°; P = .004) compared with the BR group. Regarding patient-reported outcome measures, the BR+REMP group had Rowe (MD, 2.53; 95% CI, –1.48 to 6.54; P = .21) and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) (MD, –61.60; 95% CI, –148.03 to 24.82; P = .162) scores that were comparable with those of the BR group. Conclusion: Remplissage resulted in a 9-fold decrease in the recurrence of instability after arthroscopic BR in patients with HSL. Remplissage not only led to an increase in forward flexion but also only slightly limited patients’ external rotation in adduction. WOSI and Rowe scores after remplissage at the final 24-month follow-up were comparable with those obtained after isolated Bankart repair.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".