What Are the Effects of Remplissage on 6-Month Strength and Range of Motion After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair? A Multicenter Cohort Study

Abstract

Background: Patients 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). Hypothesis: There will be a significant loss of strength or ROM at 6 months after arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage compared with Bankart repair alone. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A 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. Results: At 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). Conclusion: Arthroscopic 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.