ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2024
Understanding the Remplissage: History, Biomechanics, Outcomes, and Current Indications.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Arthroscopic Bone Graft Remplissage Using Flexible Bone Allograft for Treatment of Hill-Sachs Lesions in Anterior Shoulder Instability.Arthroscopy techniques · 2026Article
- Shoulder Internal and External Rotator Strength Reliability and Validity in Healthy Adolescent Athletes.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2026Article
- Arthroscopic Bilateral Autologous Iliac Crest Bone Grafting for Restoring Large Bipolar Bone Loss in Anterior Shoulder Dislocation.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- An Evidence-Based Approach to Indication for Remplissage.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025Review
- Division 1 Collegiate American Football Players Experience a Low Revision Rate After Undergoing Arthroscopic Shoulder Labral Repair.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Anterior Shoulder Instability: To Remplissage or Not to Remplissage.Video journal of sports medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewArthroscopic remplissage has continued to gain popularity as an adjunct to Bankart repair for patients with anterior shoulder instability. Although the original remplissage technique was described over 15 years ago, our understanding of when and how to use this procedure continues to evolve. This article provides a review of how remplissage affects shoulder biomechanics, compares clinical outcomes between remplissage and other procedures for shoulder instability, and discusses current indications for remplissage. RECENT
findingsCurrent research focuses on the use of remplissage across a wide range of glenoid bone loss. Remplissage appears effective at preventing recurrent instability in patients with glenoid bone loss up to 15% of the glenoid width. However, once glenoid bone exceeds 15%, outcomes tend to favor bony reconstruction procedures such as Latarjet. Results of biomechanical studies examining shoulder range of motion (ROM) after remplissage are mixed, though clinical studies tend to report no significant limitations in ROM when remplissage is added to a Bankart repair. Adding a remplissage to conventional Bankart repair may improve clinical outcomes and lower rates of recurrent instability without significantly altering shoulder ROM. However, surgeons should recognize its limitations in treating patients with large amounts of glenoid bone loss and should be prepared to discuss alternative procedures on a case-by-case basis. Absolute indications and contraindications for remplissage are not well defined currently and require further scientific research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.