Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 8, pp 2363–2371 | Cite as

Remplissage Versus Latarjet for Engaging Hill-Sachs Defects Without Substantial Glenoid Bone Loss: A Biomechanical Comparison

  • Ryan M. Degen
  • Joshua W. Giles
  • James A. Johnson
  • George S. AthwalEmail author
Symposium: Complex Issues in Glenohumeral Instability



Recurrent shoulder instability is commonly associated with Hill-Sachs defects. These defects may engage the glenoid rim, contributing to glenohumeral dislocation. Two treatment options to manage engaging Hill-Sachs defects are the remplissage procedure, which fills the defect with soft tissue, and the Latarjet procedure, which increases glenoid arc length. Little evidence exists to support one over the other.


We performed a biomechanical comparison of the remplissage procedure to the traditional Latarjet coracoid transfer for management of engaging Hill-Sachs defects in terms of joint stiffness (resistance to anterior translation), ROM, and frequency of dislocation.


Eight cadaveric specimens were tested on a shoulder instability simulator. Testing was performed with a 25% Hill-Sachs defect with an intact glenoid and after remplissage and Latarjet procedures. Joint stiffness, internal-external rotation ROM, and frequency of dislocation were assessed. Additionally, horizontal extension ROM was measured in composite glenohumeral abduction.


After remplissage, stiffness increased in adduction with neutral rotation (12.7 ± 3.7 N/mm) relative to the Hill-Sachs defect state (8.7 ± 3.3 N/mm; p = 0.016). The Latarjet procedure did not affect joint stiffness (p = 1.0). Internal-external rotation ROM was reduced in abduction after the Latarjet procedure (49° ± 14°) compared with the Hill-Sachs defect state (69° ± 17°) (p = 0.009). Horizontal extension was reduced after remplissage (16° ± 12°) relative to the Hill-Sachs defect state (34° ± 8°) (p = 0.038). With the numbers available, there was no difference between the procedures in terms of the frequency of dislocation after reconstruction: 84% of specimens (27 of 32 testing scenarios) stabilized after remplissage, while 94% of specimens (30 of 32 testing scenarios) stabilized after the Latarjet procedure.


Both procedures proved effective in reducing the frequency of dislocation in a 25% Hill-Sachs defect model, while neither procedure consistently altered joint stiffness.

Clinical Relevance

In the treatment of shoulder instability with a humeral head bone defect and an intact glenoid rim, this study supports the use of both the remplissage and Latarjet procedures. Clinical studies and larger cadaveric studies powered to detect differences in instability rates are needed to evaluate these procedures in terms of their comparative efficacy at preventing dislocation, as any differences between them seem likely to be small.


Rotator Cuff External Rotation Humeral Head Joint Stiffness Shoulder Instability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Armitage MS, Faber KJ, Drosdowech DS, Litchfield RB, Athwal GS. Humeral head bone defects: remplissage, allograft, and arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2010;41:417–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boileau P, O’Shea K, Vargas P, Pinedo M, Old J, Zumstein M. Anatomical and functional results after arthroscopic Hill-Sachs remplissage. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:618–626.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boileau P, Villalba M, Héry JY, Balg F, Ahrens P, Neyton L. Risk factors for recurrence of shoulder instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1755–1763.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burkhart SS, De Beer JF. Traumatic glenohumeral bone defects and their relationship to failure of arthroscopic Bankart repairs: significance of the inverted-pear glenoid and the humeral engaging Hill-Sachs lesion. Arthroscopy. 2000;16:677–694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burkhart SS, De Beer JF, Barth JR, Cresswell T, Criswell T, Roberts C, Richards DP. Results of modified Latarjet reconstruction in patients with anteroinferior instability and significant bone loss. Arthroscopy. 2007;23:1033–1041.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Degen RM, Giles JW, Thompson SR, Litchfield RB, Athwal GS. Biomechanics of complex shoulder instability. Clin Sports Med. 2013;32:625–636.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elkinson I, Giles JW, Faber KJ, Boons HW, Ferreira LM, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. The effect of the remplissage procedure on shoulder stability and range of motion: an in vitro biomechanical assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:1003–1012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Franceschi F, Papalia R, Rizzello G, Franceschetti E, Del Buono A, Panascì M, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Remplissage repair–new frontiers in the prevention of recurrent shoulder instability: a 2-year follow-up comparative study. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:2462–2469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giles JW, Boons HW, Elkinson I, Faber KJ, Ferreira LM, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. Does the dynamic sling effect of the Latarjet procedure improve shoulder stability? A biomechanical evaluation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22:821–827.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giles JW, Boons HW, Ferreira LM, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. The effect of the conjoined tendon of the short head of the biceps and coracobrachialis on shoulder stability and kinematics during in-vitro simulation. J Biomech. 2011;44:1192–1195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giles JW, Elkinson I, Ferreira LM, Faber KJ, Boons H, Litchfield R, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. Moderate to large engaging Hill-Sachs defects: an in vitro biomechanical comparison of the remplissage procedure, allograft humeral head reconstruction, and partial resurfacing arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21:1142–1151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Itoi E, Yamamoto N, Kurokawa D, Sano H. Bone loss in anterior instability. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2013;6:88–94.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kedgley AE, Mackenzie GA, Ferreira LM, Drosdowech DS, King GJ, Faber KJ, Johnson JA. The effect of muscle loading on the kinematics of in vitro glenohumeral abduction. J Biomech. 2007;40:2953–2960.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kedgley AE, Mackenzie GA, Ferreira LM, Johnson JA, Faber KJ. In vitro kinematics of the shoulder following rotator cuff injury. Clin Biomech. (Bristol, Avon). 2007;22:1068–1073.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    King GJ, Pillon CL, Johnson JA. Effect of in vitro testing over extended periods on the low-load mechanical behaviour of dense connective tissues. J Orthop Res. 2000;18:678–681.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Latarjet M. [Treatment of recurrent dislocation of the shoulder] [in French]. Lyon Chir. 1954;49:994–997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lippitt SB, Vanderhooft JE, Harris SL, Sidles JA, Harryman DT, Matsen FA. Glenohumeral stability from concavity-compression: a quantitative analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993;2:27–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poppen NK, Walker PS. Forces at the glenohumeral joint in abduction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;135:165–170.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Provencher MT, Frank RM, Leclere LE, Metzger PD, Ryu JJ, Bernhardson A, Romeo AA. The Hill-Sachs lesion: diagnosis, classification, and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20:242–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Purchase RJ, Wolf EM, Hobgood ER, Pollock ME, Smalley CC. Hill-Sachs “remplissage”: an arthroscopic solution for the engaging Hill-Sachs lesion. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:723–726.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sekiya JK, Wickwire AC, Stehle JH, Debski RE. Hill-Sachs defects and repair using osteoarticular allograft transplantation: biomechanical analysis using a joint compression model. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:2459–2466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skendzel JG, Sekiya JK. Diagnosis and management of humeral head bone loss in shoulder instability. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:2633–2644.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Veeger HE, Van der Helm FC, Van der Woude LH, Pronk GM, Rozendal RH. Inertia and muscle contraction parameters for musculoskeletal modelling of the shoulder mechanism. J Biomech. 1991;24:615–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wellmann M, de Ferrari H, Smith T, Petersen W, Siebert CH, Agneskirchner JD, Hurschler C. Biomechanical investigation of the stabilization principle of the Latarjet procedure. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:377–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wellmann M, Petersen W, Zantop T, Herbort M, Kobbe P, Raschke MJ, Hurschler C. Open shoulder repair of osseous glenoid defects: biomechanical effectiveness of the Latarjet procedure versus a contoured structural bone graft. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:87–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu G, van der Helm FC, Veeger HE, Makhsous M, Van Roy P, Anglin C, Nagels J, Karduna AR, McQuade K, Wang X, Werner FW, Buchholz B. ISB recommendation on definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the reporting of human joint motion. Part II. Shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand. J Biomech. 2005;38:981–992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yagishita K, Thomas BJ. Use of allograft for large Hill-Sachs lesion associated with anterior glenohumeral dislocation: a case report. Injury. 2002;33:791–794.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yamamoto N, Itoi E, Abe H, Minagawa H, Seki N, Shimada Y, Okada K. Contact between the glenoid and the humeral head in abduction, external rotation, and horizontal extension: a new concept of glenoid track. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16:649–656.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan M. Degen
    • 1
  • Joshua W. Giles
    • 1
  • James A. Johnson
    • 1
  • George S. Athwal
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Hand and Upper Limb Biomechanics LaboratoryLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations