Single versus double-incision technique for the repair of acute distal biceps tendon ruptures: a randomized clinical trial

Distal Biceps and Triceps Injuries

Background:

Rupture of the distal biceps and triceps tendons are relatively uncommon injuries typically occurring in middle-aged males as a result of eccentric loading of the tendon.

Methods:

A literature search was performed and the authors’ personal experiences reported.

Results:

This review discusses the diagnosis, indications and guidelines for management of these injuries and provides a description of the authors’ preferred operative techniques.

Conclusion:

Whilst non-operative treatment may be appropriate for patients with low functional demands, surgical management is the preferred option for the majority of patients. We have described a cortical button technique and osseous tunnel technique utilised at our institution for distal biceps and triceps tendon fixation respectively. For biceps or triceps tendon injuries, those receiving an early diagnosis and undergoing surgical intervention, an excellent functional outcome can be expected.

Distal Biceps Tendon Anatomic Repair

Distal biceps injuries, which usually occur in active middle-aged men, can result in chronic pain and loss of supination and flexion strength³,⁴. Surgical repair of a ruptured distal biceps tendon can reliably decrease pain and improve strength compared with nonoperative management³,⁴. However, even following successful healing and rehabilitation of a surgically repaired biceps tendon, full supination strength is rarely restored⁵-⁷. The expected outcome following distal biceps repair using a traditional anterior approach is a measurable loss of rotational strength, especially from neutral to supinated positions⁵,⁷. This deficit can lead to difficulty with occupational and recreational activities⁵,⁸. The center of an uninjured biceps tendon inserts into the radial tuberosity 6.7 mm anterior to its apex⁹,¹⁰. This posterior location forces the biceps tendon to wrap around the radial protuberance during pronation, thus utilizing the protuberance as a mechanical cam during forceful forearm supination¹⁰,¹¹. The distal biceps tendon comprises a medial short head and lateral long head; the 2 heads are continuations of the proximal muscles²,²⁰,²¹. The short head inserts distal to the long head on their radial attachment site²,²⁰,²¹. Performing a distal biceps repair via an anterior approach typically places the center of the reattachment site 12.9 mm anterior to its apex or approximately 6 mm anterior to an uninjured control tendon⁹. This shifts the repair site from its anatomic location (posterior to the radial protuberance) to a new nonanatomic location (on top of the protuberance). This anterior reattachment location decreases the cam effect of the radial protuberance, resulting in an average supination loss of 10% in neutral rotation and 33% in 60° of supination⁷,¹⁰. A posterior approach to the radial tuberosity using 2 separate intramedullary buttons for the short and long heads reliably positions the distal biceps insertion at its anatomic footprint, which is posterior to the radial protuberance⁹,¹⁰,¹¹. This technique has been named the distal biceps tendon anatomic repair. Not only does it restore the normal supination cam effect of the radial protuberance, but it also provides superior initial fixation strength, with load to failure strength similar to the native tendon¹. The distal biceps anatomic repair can be divided into the following 9 key steps: Step 1: Preoperative planning; Step 2: Positioning; Step 3: Identifying and retrieving the tendon; Step 4: Preparing the 2 heads of the tendon; Step 5: Posterior exposure of tendon footprint; Step 6: Drilling the short and long-head drill holes; Step 7: Passage of the tendon; Step 8: Unicortical button fixation; Step 9: Alternative fixation: cortical trough; and Step 10: Postoperative management.

Surgical Treatment of Distal Biceps Tendon Ruptures: An Analysis of Complications in 784 Surgical Repairs

BACKGROUND

Distal biceps brachii tendon ruptures lead to substantial deficits in elbow flexion and supination; surgical repair restores muscle strength and endurance.

PURPOSE

To examine clinical and surgical outcomes for distal biceps tendon repairs in a large, multispecialty, integrated health care system.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of distal biceps tendon repairs performed between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2015. The repair methods were classified as double-incision approach using bone tunnel-suture fixation or anterior single-incision approach. Anterior single incisions were further classified according to the fixation method: cortical button alone, cortical button and interference screw, or suture anchors alone. Patient demographics, surgeon characteristics, range of motion, and complications were analyzed for all repair types.

RESULTS

Of the 784 repairs that met the inclusion criteria, 639 (81.5%) were single-incision approaches. When comparing double-incision and single-incision repairs, there was a significantly higher rate of posterior interosseous nerve palsy (3.4% vs 0.8%, P = .010), heterotopic bone formation (7.6% vs 2.7%, P = .004), and reoperation (8.3% vs 2.3%, P < .001). The most common nerve complication encountered was a lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve palsy (n = 162), which was significantly more common in the single-incision repairs than in the double-incision repairs (24.4% vs 4.1%, P < .001). When excluding lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve palsies, there was no significant difference in the overall nerve palsies between single-incision and double-incision (5.8% vs 6.9%, P = .612). The overall rate of tendon rerupture was 1.9% (single incision, 1.6%; double incision, 2.8%; P = .327). The overall rate of postoperative wound infection was 1.5% (single incision, 1.3%; double incision, 2.8%; P = .182). The average time from surgery to release from medical care was 14.4 weeks (single incision, 14 weeks; double incision, 16 weeks; P = .286). Patients treated with cortical button plus interference screw were released significantly sooner than were patients with other single-incision repair types (13.1 ± 8.01 weeks, P = .011). There were no significant differences in rates of motor neurapraxia, infection, rerupture, and reoperation with regard to surgeon's years of practice, fellowship training, or case volume.

CONCLUSION

The surgical repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures has an overall low rate of serious complications, regardless of approach or technique. However, the double-incision technique has a higher rate of posterior interosseous nerve palsy, heterotopic bone formation, and reoperation rate. Surgeon's years of practice, fellowship training, and case volume do not affect the rate of major complications.

The utility of botulinum toxin A in the repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures

PURPOSE

The purpose of our study is to report the outcomes and complications in patients who underwent distal biceps tendon repair with the use of Botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) as an adjunct to surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 14 patients who underwent 15 distal biceps tendon repairs was performed. All repaired tendons had their correlating muscle bellies injected intraoperatively with a mixture of 100U of BoNT-A and 10 ml of normal saline. Each patient was evaluated for surgical and post-operative complications and followed with Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Disability Scores.

RESULTS

The cohort was exclusively male, 14/14 (100%). The mean age at procedure was 52.1 years (range: 29-65 years). Types of injuries repaired included: 12 acute biceps tendon ruptures, one chronic partial (> 50% of tendon) biceps tear, and two chronic biceps ruptures. Average final follow-up was 32.9 months (SD: 19.6; range: 7.07-61.72). Average time to repair of chronic injury was 5.75 months (range: 2-12 months). There were no intraoperative complications, and all patients were discharged home on the day of surgery. Average DASH score at latest follow-up was 4.9 (range: 0.0-12.5). All patients had return of function of paralyzed muscle prior to final follow-up. One patient required an incision and drainage for a deep infection 1 week post-operatively, without any further complications. Another patient required operative removal of heterotopic ossification located around the tendon fixation site, which was the result of a superficial infection treated with antibiotics 2 weeks post-operatively. This patient later healed with improvement in supination/pronation range-of-motion and no further complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Injection of BoNT-A is safe and effective to protect distal biceps tendon repair during the early phases of bone-tendon healing.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

BoNT-A may is safe and effective to protect distal biceps tendon repair. The utility of BoNT-A as an adjunct to surgical repair may be applicable to acute or chronic tears as well as repairs in the non-compliant patient without decreases in functional scores after return of function of the biceps muscle.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

Primary Repair of Traumatic Distal Biceps Ruptures in a Military Population: Clinical Outcomes of Single- Versus 2-Incision Technique

PURPOSE

To determine the success of distal biceps repair in a high-demand military population and to comparatively evaluate the perioperative risk profile, functional results, and adverse patient outcomes of a single- versus 2-incision technique within this high-risk group.

METHODS

Between 2007-2013, all military service members undergoing primary surgical repair for distal biceps rupture through the Military Health System were isolated. Patients with allograft tendon reconstruction, revision procedures, nonmilitary status, and/or follow-up of less than 24 month were excluded. Demographic data (age, limb dominance) and surgical variables (time to surgery, surgical technique) were extracted, and rates of perioperative complications, rerupture, reoperation, revision, and inability to return to preinjury function were recorded. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate for prognostic risk factors, whereas the Fisher exact test was used for comparative analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 290 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 44 (15.2%) with a delayed presentation; all patients were men, with an average age of 38.9 years (range, 20-61 years). A single-incision technique was performed in 75.4% (n = 214) versus a 2-incision technique in 24.6% (n = 70), and a cortical button was the predominant fixation construct (73.4%). Reruptures occurred in 7 patients (2.4%), and 3 individuals (1.0%) had significant elbow dysfunction postoperatively. When we compared the overall complication rates, the 2-incision technique (7.1%, n = 5) was not significantly different from the single-incision repair (16.4%, n = 35; P = .0732). Tobacco use was significantly associated with risk of rerupture (odds ratio, 4.86; P = .0423) or combined surgical and clinical failures (odds ratio, 5.64; P = .0091), whereas age, limb dominance, time to surgery, fixation construct, and surgical technique were not statistically significant (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Among active patients, a single-volar incision technique and a 2-incision technique showed similar complication profiles. Rerupture and persistent elbow dysfunction were uncommon, but adverse outcomes were significantly more likely among patients who used tobacco. Anatomic distal biceps repair is a safe surgical procedure with excellent clinical outcomes and a 96.6% rate of return to preoperative military function without restrictions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Use of a Bicortical Button to Safely Repair the Distal Biceps in a Two-Incision Approach: A Cadaveric Analysis

PURPOSE

No consensus has been reached on the most effective anatomic approach or fixation method for distal biceps repair. It is our hypothesis that, using a cortical biceps button through a 2-incision technique, the distal biceps can be safely and anatomically repaired.

METHODS

A 2-incision biceps button distal biceps repair was completed on 10 fresh-frozen cadavers. The proximity of the guide pin to the critical structures of the forearm, including the posterior interosseous nerve and recurrent radial artery, was measured. The location of repair was mapped and compared with anatomic insertion.

RESULTS

The average distance from the tip of the guide pin to the posterior interosseous nerve was 11.4 mm (range, 8-14 mm). The average distance from the tip of the guide pin to the recurrent radial artery was 12.5 mm (range, 8-19 mm). The distal biceps tendon was repaired to the anatomic insertion site on the tuberosity using the biceps button technique in all specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-incision biceps button repair described here allows safe and accurate repair of the tendon to the radial tuberosity in this cadaveric study.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The goal of distal biceps repair is to safely, securely, and anatomically repair the torn biceps tendon to the radial tuberosity. The most commonly performed techniques (single anterior incision with cortical button and the double-incision procedure with bone tunnels and trough) have limitations. A 2-incision button repair safely and anatomically repairs the distal biceps tendon.

Good isometric and isokinetic power restoration after distal biceps tendon repair with anchors

INTRODUCTION

Distal biceps brachii tendon rupture can lead to 30-40% power loss of elbow flexion and up to 50% of forearm supination. Re-fixation of the distal biceps brachii tendon is recommended to warrant an adequate quality of the patient's life. This study reports the isometric and isokinetic results after anchor re-fixation 2.5 years after surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2007 and 2010, 69 patients with distal biceps brachii tendon tear underwent a suture anchor reattachment. During the follow-up examination, a questionnaire and DASH score were filled in, the circumferences of the arm were measured, range of motion was collected, and different trials were conducted at the BTE Primus RS™ (Baltimore Therapeutic Equipment) on both arms.

RESULTS

49 patients (71%) were reinvestigated with a follow-up of 32 months (11-58 months). A significant difference was found in the ability of elbow flexion between the affected arm and the opposite side as well as in pronation and supination. In elbow flexion and extension as well as in pronation and supination of the forearm, the strength was significantly diminished.

CONCLUSIONS

32 months after surgical re-fixation of the distal biceps brachii tendon rupture, strength in all exercises is marginally reduced in comparison to the opposite arm. Re-fixation of the distal biceps brachii tendon is an adequate method to return the range of motion and the strength in the elbow joint to an almost normal level and that gives rise to a high level of patient satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control study.

A Single-Incision Technique for Distal Biceps Repair Using a Flexible Reamer

Distal biceps tendon ruptures are rare injuries that usually occur in middle-aged men. Most of these injuries are repaired acutely to restore preinjury function and strength. There is concern regarding the higher prevalence of certain complications with the double-incision technique. As such, the single-incision technique has also been studied to determine if it may produce superior safety and efficacy. In addition, the point of fixation may be created with either a rigid or a flexible reamer. The authors describe a technique that uses a single-incision cortical fixation achieved with a flexible reamer. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(4):e744-e748.].

Delayed repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures is successful: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

The literature has shown an increased complication rate with a delay to surgical repair of acute distal biceps tendon ruptures; however, little has been documented regarding the outcome of delayed repairs. This case-control study compared a study cohort of delayed (>21 days) distal biceps tendon repairs with a control cohort repaired acutely (<21 days).

METHODS

Sixteen delayed repair cases were reviewed and matched with acute controls (1:3) based on repair technique, age, and workers' compensation status. The delayed cohort was reviewed and completed isometric strength testing and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire; Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation; and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons elbow questionnaire.

RESULTS

The time to surgery averaged 37 ± 12 days in the delayed cohort versus 10 ± 6 days in the acute cohort. Complications occurred in 63% of patients in the delayed cohort versus 29% in the acute cohort (P = .04); however, 90% of the delayed cohort's complications consisted of transient paresthesias. Follow-up scores on the Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons elbow questionnaire were not statistically different between cohorts (P > .37, P > .22, and P > .46, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high rate of initial complications, patients treated with distal biceps tendon repair after a delay (>21 days) can expect similar functional outcomes to those treated acutely.

Reconstruction of the distal biceps tendon using triceps graft: a technical note

Rupture of the distal biceps brachii tendon typically occur in a contraction against resistance with the elbow in 90° of flexion. Chronic ruptures are uncommon and are complicated by tendon and muscle retraction and poor quality. Some reconstruction techniques have been described in the literature, with variations on the surgical exposures, type of graft (allo or autograft), graft donor site, and type of attachment to the radial tuberosity. The authors report the case of a patient presented a rupture of the distal biceps brachii tendon that took place five weeks earlier and, therefore, underwent reconstruction using autograft from the central strip of triceps tendon through double incision and fixation with anchors to the radial tuberosity. The use of the triceps brachii as autograft for reconstruction of chronic ruptures of the distal biceps had not yet been described in the literature. The authors have chosen to use it due to its biomechanical characteristics that qualify it as suitable for this procedure and because this is easier for collection, using the same operating field at the same joint, minimizing the negative effects of the donor area. After six months postoperatively, the patient has full movement arc and restoration of 96% of the flexion strength and 90% of the supination strength when compared with the contralateral limb. This procedure appears to be a good option for cases of chronic distal biceps rupture in older patients who have functional demand of supination.

Distal biceps tendon injuries: A clinically relevant current concepts review

Distal biceps tendon (DBT) conditions comprise a spectrum of disorders including bicipitoradial bursitis, partial tears, acute and chronic complete tears.

In low-demand patients with complete DBT tears, non-operative treatment may be entertained provided the patient understands the potential for residual weakness, particularly in forearm supination.

Most acute tears are best treated by primary repair using either single-incision or double-incision techniques with good clinical outcomes.

Single-incision techniques may carry a higher risk of nerve-related complications, whereas double-incision techniques have historically been considered to carry a higher risk of heterotopic ossification, particularly if the ulna is exposed.

Various fixation techniques, including bone tunnels, cortical buttons, suture anchors, interference screws or a combination seem to provide different fixation strength but similar clinical outcomes.

Some chronic tears may be repaired primarily, provided tendon tissue can be identified; alternatively, autograft or allograft reconstruction can be considered, and good outcomes have been reported with both techniques.

Cite this article: Alentorn-Geli E, Assenmacher AT, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Distal biceps tendon injuries: a clinically relevant current concepts review. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:316-324. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.000053.

Acute distal biceps ruptures: single incision repair by use of suture anchors

Objective

Clinical and functional assessment of the surgical treatment for acute injury of the distal insertion of the biceps brachial performed with a surgical technique using a single incision in proximal forearm and fixation with suture anchors in the radial tuberosity.

Methods

This study reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent surgical treatment of distal biceps injury during the period between January 2008 and July 2014. In a mean follow-up of 12 months, 22 patients with complete and acute injury, diagnosed through physical examination and imaging studies, were functionally assessed in the postoperative period regarding the range of motion (degrees of flexion-extension and pronation–supination), the presence of pain (VAS), the Andrews Carson-score, and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS).

Results

During the postoperative follow-up assessment, no patient reported pain by VAS scale; all were satisfied with the esthetic appearance of the surgery. The range of articular movement remained unchanged at 95.4% of patients, with the loss of 8° of supination in one patient. No changes in muscle strength were observed. The results of the Andrews-Carson score were good in 4.6% and excellent in 95.4% of cases; the MEPS presented 100% of excellent results. The rate of complications was 27.2%, similar to the literature.

Conclusion

Surgical repair of acute injury of the distal biceps trough a single incision in the proximal forearm and fixation with two suture anchors in the radial tuberosity is an effective and safe therapeutic option, allowing early motion and good functional results.

Biceps and Triceps Ruptures in Athletes

Although rare, biceps and triceps tendon ruptures constitute significant injuries that can lead to profound disability if left untreated, especially in the athletic population. Biceps rupture is more common than triceps rupture, with both resulting from a forceful eccentric load. Surgical repair is the treatment method of choice for tendinous ruptures in athletes. Nonoperative management is rarely indicated in this population and is typically reserved for individuals with partial ruptures that quickly regain strength and function. Surgical anatomy, evaluation, diagnosis, and surgical management of these injuries are covered in this article.

Cadaveric Study of Insertional Anatomy of Distal Biceps Tendon and its Relationship to the Dynamic Proximal Radioulnar Space

PURPOSE

To quantify and assess the relationship between the insertional dimensions of the distal biceps tendon (DBT) and radioulnar space (RUS) in 3 rotational positions. We hypothesized that in all positions RUS would be adequate for the DBT and would remain adequate even after an incremental increase (1 to 3 mm) in tendon thickness.

METHODS

Eleven fresh-frozen cadaveric elbows were dissected; DBT dimensions and bicipital tuberosity measurements were performed and insertional footprints were quantified using a distal biceps footprint index. The RUS was measured at 3 levels of the bicipital tuberosity and in 3 positions of forearm rotation. We performed statistical analysis to analyze differences in RUS (positional and inter-level). In addition, significant differences between DBT thickness (native and incremental) and RUS were analyzed to identify potential sites of radioulnar impingement.

RESULTS

The DBT had a mean length of 92 mm; thickness ranged from 2.9 to 6.1 mm. Three variations in DBT insertional footprint were observed and quantified. The RUS linear distance reduced significantly from a supinated to a pronated position at each of 3 bicipital tuberosity levels; the reduction was statistically significant at the lower tuberosity level (45%). Pronation RUS distance was adequate for native DBT thickness and was significantly less when DBT thickness increased by 2 and 3 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Radioulnar space reduces significantly from the supinated to the pronated position and is most evident in the lower aspect of the tuberosity. In addition, the RUS in pronation is inadequate for incremental increases in DBT thickness.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Postoperative DBT impingement in the RUS may be prevented by avoiding techniques that increase the thickness of the tendon and by using a reattachment site at the proximal aspect of the tuberosity.

Endoscopic Repair of Acute and Chronic Retracted Distal Biceps Ruptures

Distal biceps tendon (DBT) ruptures are infrequent injuries that result in pain, weakness, and cosmetic deformity. Severe retraction of the ruptured DBT can occur at the time of injury, or in chronic neglected ruptures, and surgical exposure is performed using a single incision or a 2-incision technique. The technique presented here describes an endoscopic approach using 3 portals that provide access to the retracted DBT, biceps sheath, and radial tuberosity. Preoperative sonographic localization of the retracted DBT and neurovascular structures is used to guide portal placement. The parabiceps portal is used for visualization of the biceps sheath remnant, and the midbiceps portal is used to visualize and retrieve the retracted tendon in the arm. The retracted DBT is shuttled through the biceps sheath into the upper forearm, and 2 suture anchors are passed into the radial tuberosity under direct endoscopic vision. The DBT is whipstitched via the distal anterior portal, and nonsliding knots are tied to securely reattach the DBT to the prepared radial tuberosity.

Radiological and Clinical Evaluation of the Transosseous Cortical Button Technique in Distal Biceps Tendon Repair

PURPOSE

One of the options to repair a ruptured distal biceps tendon to the radial tuberosity is by means of a transosseous cortical button. Although excellent functional outcomes have been reported, no studies have been performed to quantify the effect of the transosseous fixation technique on the radius. Our study evaluated the clinical outcome and radiological outcome of this technique. The main goal of this study was to evaluate the radiographic evolution of the bone tunnel in the radius.

METHODS

Patients with an acute distal biceps tendon rupture treated with a transosseous cortical button were invited to take part in the study. Fourteen patients were included in the final analysis. All patients were evaluated both clinically and by computed tomography scanning of the proximal radius after a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Outcomes were recorded using the visual analog scale score for pain, the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores. Bone tunnel volume was measured with semiautomated computed tomography segmentation using image-processing software.

RESULTS

There were no failures of fixation in the patient group examined. Elbow mobility, arm, and forearm circumference were symmetric for all patients. Average visual analog scale for pain was less than 2. Mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score and Mayo Elbow Performance Score were 2.3 and 97.6, respectively. Computed tomography images showed an average closure of the radial bony tunnel of 64% of the initial volume.

CONCLUSIONS

Biceps tendon repair with cortical button fixation only shows partial tunnel closure. This could reduce the risk of potential complications due to osteolysis, such as radius fracture or hardware failure. Functional results were excellent and comparable to other fixation methods. The role of interference screws in transosseous cortical button techniques to strengthen the repair and to avoid osteolysis may therefore be questioned.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Complications of Distal Biceps Tendon Repair: A Meta-analysis of Single-Incision Versus Double-Incision Surgical Technique

Background:

Anatomic reinsertion of the distal biceps is critical for restoring flexion and supination strength. Single- and double-incision surgical techniques have been reported, analyzing complications and outcomes measures. Which technique results in superior clinical outcomes and the lowest associated complications remains unclear.

Hypothesis:

We hypothesized that rerupture rates would be similar between the 2 techniques, while nerve complications would be higher for the single-incision technique and heterotopic ossification would be more frequent with the double-incision technique.

Study Design:

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), SPORTSDiscus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify articles reporting distal biceps ruptures up to August 2013. We included English-language articles on adult patients with a minimum of 3 cases reporting single- and double-incision techniques. Frequencies of each complication as a percentage of total cases were calculated. Fisher exact tests were used to test the association between frequencies for each repair method, with P < .05 considered statistically significant. Odds ratios with 95% CIs were also computed.

Results:

A total of 87 articles met the inclusion criteria. Lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve neurapraxia was the most common complication in the single-incision group, occurring in 77 of 785 cases (9.8%). Heterotopic ossification was the most common complication in the double-incision group, occurring in 36 of 498 cases (7.2%).

Conclusion:

The overall frequency of reported complications is higher for single-incision distal biceps repair than for double-incision repair. The frequencies of rerupture and nerve complications are both higher for single-incision repairs while the frequency of heterotopic ossification is higher for double-incision repairs. These findings can help surgeons make better-informed decisions about surgical technique and provide their patients with detailed information about expected outcomes and possible complications.

Distal biceps tendon history, updates, and controversies: from the closed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons meeting-2015

Understanding of the distal biceps anatomy, mechanics, and biology during the last 75 years has greatly improved the physician's ability to advise and to treat patients with ruptured distal tendons. The goal of this paper is to review the past and current advances on complete distal biceps ruptures as well as controversies and future directions that were discussed and debated during the closed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons meeting in 2015.

A functional analysis of distal biceps tendon repair: single-incision Endobutton technique vs. two-incision modified Boyd-Anderson technique

INTRODUCTION

The optimal surgical technique for a distal biceps tendon rupture repair still remains controversial. Current biomechanical evidence shows Endobutton fixation to have the highest load-to-failure testing, but clinical results of this are limited. The purpose of this study was to compare patient-oriented functional outcome between a modified Boyd-Anderson two-incision technique and repair with a single-incision Endobutton technique.

METHODS

All patients who underwent distal biceps tendon repair with a two-incision or Endobutton technique between 2000 and 2010 with two-year follow-up at our institution were identified. Their clinical, operative, and follow-up data was collected and analyzed. The primary outcome was a patient-oriented functional outcome measure (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand: DASH). Secondary outcomes were evaluated using a subjective questionnaire.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were repaired with the two-incision technique and twenty-five patients had a repair with a single incision Endobutton technique. All patients receiving the two-incision repair were male, while there were 2 females who had an Endobutton procedure. There was no significant difference between the two-incision and the Endobutton groups in regards to mean DASH score (6.31 versus 5.91, p = 0.697), mean Work DASH score (10.49 versus 0.93, p = 0.166), and mean Sports DASH score (10.54 versus 9.56, p = 0.987). Regardless of technique, most patients were "extremely satisfied" (n = 42, or 72.41%) or "satisfied" (n = 10, or 17.24%) postoperatively, and returned to pre-operative activity in approximately 6 months (6.87 months versus 6.82 months, respectively) (p = 0.457). There was no significant difference in the prevalence of complications (39.39% versus 32.0%, respectively for two incision versus single incision) (p = 0.594).

CONCLUSION

Patients from both surgical groups were satisfied with their post-operative function and had similar functional outcomes and complication rates. Both surgical techniques for distal biceps tendon repair are effective and are similarly safe methods of treatment.

[Distal biceps tendon rupture : Overview and own procedure]

Mainly males in their 40s and 50s suffer from distal biceps tendon rupture. The diagnosis is made by clinical evaluation and is usually confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging. Different approaches and reconstruction techniques have been described in the past, and the clinical results are mostly good and excellent. Thereby the decision regarding which technique to use lies with the surgeon. However, specific complications have been described and should be considered.

Acute distal biceps rupture in an adolescent weightlifter on chronic steroid suppression: a case report

Distal biceps tendon ruptures are uncommon events in the adult population and exceedingly rare in the adolescent population. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first and only report of a distal biceps tendon rupture in an adolescent with a history of chronic corticosteroid suppression. We present a case of a 17-year-old male on chronic corticosteroid suppression who underwent a successful distal biceps tendon repair after an acute rupture following weightlifting. At the 1-year follow-up, the patient reports full range of motion and strength, and is able to return to his preinjury activity level with sports and weightlifting. Acute distal biceps ruptures are uncommon injuries in the pediatric population, but may occur in conjunction with chronic corticosteroid use. Anatomic repair, when possible, can restore function and strength.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

level IV, case report.

Factors associated with adverse events after distal biceps tendon repair or reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Factors associated with adverse events after distal biceps tendon repair or reconstruction are incompletely understood. This study examined factors associated with adverse events, prevalence of adverse events, and rate of second surgeries after distal biceps repair or reconstruction.

METHODS

Between January 2002 and March 2015, 373 adult patients who underwent repair or reconstruction of the distal biceps tendon at 1 of 3 area hospitals were analyzed to determine factors associated with adverse events after surgical repair or reconstruction of the distal biceps tendon.

RESULTS

Of 373 distal biceps tendon repairs or reconstructions, 82 (22%) had an adverse event; 5.3% were major adverse events. In multivariable analysis, a single-incision anterior approach and obesity were associated with a higher rate of adverse events. Fifteen patients (18% of patients with an adverse event and 4% of all patients) had a second surgery after distal biceps tendon surgery.

CONCLUSION

Patients should be counseled that 1 in 5 patients will have a minor complication and 1 in 20 patients will have a major complication after surgery on the distal biceps tendon. The most common adverse event is lateral antebrachial cutaneous neurapraxia.

Factors That Determine Supination Strength Following Distal Biceps Repair

BACKGROUND

Supination weakness commonly occurs after a distal biceps repair. The goal of this study was to identify factors that could influence postoperative supination strength through a full arc of forearm rotation.

METHODS

Fifteen patients were prospectively studied and underwent a biceps repair using a posterior approach; this cohort was compared with a randomized selection of 17 anterior repair subjects. All patients underwent postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Quantitative MRI analysis determined the insertion site angle of the tendon and supinator fat content. Supination strength was measured in 3 forearm positions. A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to determine the effect of all factors on supination strength.

RESULTS

The anterior group had a significantly higher nonanatomic insertion site angle of the tendon than the control group and the posterior group (p < 0.001). The posterior group had significantly greater supinator fat content (p ≤ 0.019) than both the control group and the anterior group. After repair, the posterior group had significantly greater supination strength than the anterior group (p = 0.027). Multiple regression analysis (r = 0.765) found that an anatomic reinsertion of the ruptured tendon (β = 1.159; p < 0.001), posterior approach (β = 0.484; p = 0.043), and limited supinator muscle fat content (β = 0.360; p = 0.013) were significant predictors of the restoration of supination strength in 60° of supination.

CONCLUSIONS

Future directions for distal biceps tendon repair techniques should focus on restoring an anatomic reattachment site while limiting supinator damage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Clinical relevance of distal biceps insertional and footprint anatomy

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was to present an overview, based on a literature search, of surgical anatomy for distal biceps tendon repairs, based on the current literature.

METHODS

A narrative review was performed using Pubmed/Medline using key words: Search terms were distal biceps, insertional, and anatomy.

RESULTS

Last decade, the interest in both reconstruction techniques, as well as surgical anatomy of the distal biceps tendon, has increased. The insights into various aspects of distal biceps tendon anatomy (two tendons, bicipital tuberosity, lacertus fibrosis, bicipital-radial bursa, posterior interosseous nerve, and lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve) have evolved significantly in the last years.

CONCLUSION

Thorough knowledge of the anatomy is essential for the surgeon in order to understand the biomechanics of rupture and reconstruction of the distal biceps tendon and to avoid injuries of the nerves. Some tips and tricks are provided, and some pitfalls were described to avoid complications and optimize surgical outcome.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Distal biceps ruptures: open and endoscopic techniques

Distal biceps tendon ruptures are relatively rare. Patients are usually middle-aged men involved in heavy labor. Patients usually present with the history of a pop and a proximal migration of the biceps muscle belly. Clinical exam should be sufficient to diagnose a complete rupture. Several specific tests have been described. Ultrasound scanning or MRI can help confirm the diagnosis. Radiographs are not needed to diagnose distal biceps tendon rupture but may show typical findings. Imaging, more specifically the flexion-abduction-supination (FABS) view MRI, is particularly helpful in the case of a partial rupture or chronic rupture of the distal biceps tendon. Results of surgical reinsertion of the distal biceps have been shown to be superior to conservative treatment. Different techniques and approaches have been described with specific advantages and disadvantages. Primary repair of the tendon is preferred. If this is no longer possible in chronic tears, an augmentation can be done using tendon graft. Results of surgical treatment are good in the vast majority of patients. Reruptures are rare but minor complications are common. Major complications may include posterior interosseous nerve palsy or radioulnar synostosis, but the risk of these complications may be decreased by meticulous attention to detail during surgery.

Single Incision Distal Biceps Repair With Hemi-Krackow Suture Technique: Surgical Technique and Early Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Many surgical methods exist for distal biceps repair. We present the technique and early outcomes of a series of distal biceps repairs completed with a novel suturing technique utilizing a hemi-Krackow locking stitch at the tendon-bone interface.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent primary distal biceps repair using a single anterior incision with 2 suture anchors utilizing a hemi-Krackow stitch. With both anchors, a locking stitch along the tendon edge was complimented by the other strand passing through the central aspect of the distal tendon and advanced to pull the tendon edge down to the bone with appropriate tension. Patients with revision surgery and the use of allograft were excluded. Clinical outcomes included elbow range of motion and grip strength. All patients completed a Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire and reported satisfaction level, pain level, and any postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients with an average age of 51.3 years (range, 27.8-66.4 years) were included in the study. The dominant arm was injured in 9 cases. At an average of 16.4 months' follow-up (range, 6.8-34.3 months), all patients had elbow range of motion of 0° to >130°, and grip strength was 101.5% of the uninjured arm (range, 70.6%-121.4%). The Average QuickDASH score was 6.5 (range, 0-36.5).

CONCLUSION

Single incision biceps repair with suture anchor fixation using our hemi-Krackow stitch provided a strong repair allowing easy tensioning of the biceps tendon to bone and showed satisfactory functional outcomes at early follow-up. No patients required revision surgery, and there was only 1 case of transient nerve complaints.

Trends associated with distal biceps tendon repair in the United States, 2007 to 2011

BACKGROUND

Current studies investigating surgical treatment of distal biceps tendon tears largely consist of small, retrospective case series. The purpose of this study was to investigate the current patient demographics, surgical trends, and postoperative complication rates associated with operative treatment of distal biceps tendon tears using a large database of privately insured, non-Medicare patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgical intervention for distal biceps tendon tears from 2007 to 2011 were identified using the PearlDiver database. Demographic and surgical data as well as postoperative complications were reviewed. Statistical analysis was performed using linear regression analysis and χ(2) tests, with statistical significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

A total of 1443 patients underwent surgical treatment for distal biceps tendon tears. Men and patients aged 40 to 59 years accounted for 98% and 72% of the cohort, respectively. Regarding surgical technique, reinsertion to the radial tuberosity was preferred (95%) over tenodesis to the brachialis (5%) (P < .01). In total, revision surgery for tendon rerupture occurred in 5.4% of treated patients. The incidence of revision surgery for rerupture in acute and chronic distal biceps tears was 5.1% and 7.0%, respectively (P = .36). Postoperative infection and peripheral nerve injury rates were 1.1% and 0.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons strongly preferred anatomic reinsertion to the radial tuberosity for treatment, regardless of the chronicity of the injury. Postoperative complication rates were similar to those found in prior studies, although the true rate of rerupture may be higher than previously thought.

Complications of Distal Biceps Repair

Modern techniques to repair the distal biceps tendon include one-incision and 2-incision techniques that use transosseous sutures, suture anchors, interference screws, and/or cortical buttons to achieve a strong repair of the distal biceps brachii. Repair using these techniques has led to improved functional outcomes when compared with nonoperative treatment. Most complications consist of neuropraxic injuries to the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve, posterior interosseous nerve, stiffness and weakness with forearm rotation, heterotopic ossification, and wound infections. Although complications certainly affect outcomes, patients with distal biceps repairs report a high satisfaction rate after repair.

Distal biceps tendon repair: comparison of clinical and radiological outcome between bioabsorbable and nonabsorbable screws

BACKGROUND

Distal biceps tendon repair to the radial tuberosity can be conducted by means of an interference screw in combination with a transosseous button. Bioabsorbable interference screws have been associated with complications such as severe osteolytic reactions. We questioned whether patients with a distal biceps tendon repair with bioabsorbable poly-L-lactide (PLLA) screws had different functional, clinical, and radiologic outcome than patients with nonabsorbable poly-ether ether ketone (PEEK) screws.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2014, 23 patients with an acute distal biceps tendon rupture were treated with reinsertion of the distal biceps tendon in a bone tunnel at the radial tuberosity through a single anterior incision using a transosseous button combined with an interference screw. A PLLA screw was used in 12 patients and a PEEK screw in 11 patients. All patients were retrospectively evaluated with a minimal follow-up of 1 year clinically and by means of the visual analog scale for pain, Mayo Elbow Performance Score, and Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure score. Bone tunnel volume was measured with computed tomography segmentation.

RESULTS

Elbow mobility and arm and forearm circumference were symmetric for all patients. The visual analog scale for pain was 0.2 in the PLLA group and 0.7 in the PEEK group. The Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score and Mayo Elbow Performance Score were 5.4 and 98.7 in the PLLA group vs. 3.1 and 95.9 in the PEEK group. Bone tunnel enlargement of 43% in the PLLA and 38% in the PEEK group was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical and functional outcome at more than 1 year after distal biceps tendon repair was excellent in both groups. Bone tunnel widening occurred in all patients.

Single and dual incision technique for acute distal biceps rupture: clinical and functional outcomes

BACKGROUND

Distal bicep tendon injuries are a traumatic event though rather rare. The pathogenesis is not entirely clear. The most common cause for injury is an unexpected load on the biceps when the elbow is in an extended position. Although several studies have provided insight into the pathogenetic processes of the lesion, the literature suggests to treat all injuries surgically (whether partial or total) if there is high functional demand.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and March 2016 were studied 20 patients surgically treated for a disconnected distal bicep, 15 with a total lesion and 5 with a partial lesion. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Surgical access with single incision was performed on 13 patients while a double surgical access was performed on 7 patients. The clinical and functional results were studied using an Ewald System Score (ESS).

RESULTS

In both groups, the most rapid improvement was achieved for the parameters of pain and deformity with excellent results, while those of function and movement were normalized as gradual and progressive over next 2 months.

CONCLUSION

The clinical and functional outcomes during the follow-up examination after surgery showed excellent results in patients treated with both types of surgical procedures.

Refixation techniques and approaches for distal biceps tendon ruptures: a systematic review of clinical studies

BACKGROUND

Surgical fixation is the preferred method of treatment for the ruptured distal biceps tendon in active patients. To date, no fixation technique has been proven superior in a clinical setting. The purpose of the study was to systematically review the available literature on approach and fixation methods for distal biceps tendon repair in a clinical setting and to determine the optimal fixation methods of the distal biceps tendon on the radial tuberosity. Our hypothesis was that the outcomes would not be significantly different among the various fixation techniques and approaches.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available literature on anatomic reconstruction methods for distal biceps tendon ruptures was performed. The outcome measures evaluated were postoperative range of motion, elbow flexion and supination strength, and complication rates and types.

RESULTS

Forty articles were included, representing 1074 patients divided into 4 fixation groups: suture anchors, bone tunnels, interference screws, and cortical buttons. There was no significant difference in range of motion and strength between the different approaches and fixation techniques. Complications were significantly less common after the double-incision approach with bone tunnel fixation (P < .0005).

CONCLUSIONS

There were significantly fewer complications after the double-incision approach with bone tunnel fixation. The double-incision approach had significantly fewer complications than the single-incision anterior approach, and the bone tunnel fixation had significantly fewer complications than the other 3 fixation techniques. However, as the double-incision approach was used with bone tunnel fixation in 84% of cases, there was a strong interrelationship between these variables.

Surgical Treatment of Distal Biceps Ruptures

Distal biceps ruptures occur from eccentric loading of a flexed elbow. Patients treated nonoperatively have substantial loss of strength in elbow flexion and forearm supination. Surgical approaches include 1-incision and 2-incision techniques. Advances in surgical technology have facilitated the popularity of single-incision techniques through a small anterior incision. Recently, there is increased focus on the detailed anatomy of the distal biceps insertion and the importance of anatomic repair in restoring forearm supination strength. Excellent outcomes are expected with early repair of the distal biceps, with restoration of strength and endurance to near-normal levels with minimal to no loss of motion.

Distal Biceps Injuries

A review of distal biceps tendon injuries is presented. Notable and recent studies on the incidence, presentation, diagnosis, and treatment are outlined. The benefits and risks of 1- and 2-incision techniques for repair are discussed, and classic studies are reviewed.

Elbow Trauma in the Athlete

In caring for athletes, the physician must be able to accurately diagnose and appropriately treat all forms of elbow injuries. Traumatic injuries to the elbow are common in the athlete. The late cocking phase of throwing produces tremendous valgus stress on the elbow that can lead to medial epicondyle avulsion fractures in adolescents or rupture of the medial ulnar collateral ligament in skeletally mature overhead throwers, such as baseball pitchers and javelin throwers. Common traumatic elbow injuries suffered by athletes, surgical techniques for operative repair of these injuries, as well as postoperative rehabilitation protocols and the clinical results are presented.

Is cross-screw fixation superior to plate for radial neck fractures?

This study compares the outcomes of two methods of fixation of displaced fractures of the radial neck. The 58 patients with a mean age of 38.5 years (18 to 56), were treated in a non randomised study with screws (n = 29) or a plate and screws (n = 29) according to the surgeon’s preference.

The patients were reviewed at one year. Radiographs and functional evaluations were carried out up to one year post-operatively, using the Broberg and Morrey functional evaluation score, range of movement, and assessment of complications.

The mean functional scores did not differ significantly between groups (90 (55 to 100) vs 84; 50 to 100, p = 0.09), but the mean range of forearm rotation in screw group was significantly better than in the plate group (152°; 110° to 170° vs 134°; 80° to 170°, p = 0.001). Although not statistically significant, the screw group had a lower incidence of heterotopic ossification than the plate group (n = 1) than the plated group (n = 3) and the pathology was graded as less severe.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:830–5

Treatment of distal biceps tendon rupture: why, when, how? Analysis of literature and our experience

INTRODUCTION

The rupture of the distal biceps tendon is a relatively uncommon lesion. Even if conservative treatment may be an option in low demanding patients, young and active subjects may benefit from an early surgical reinsertion. Many techniques and fixation devices have been described, but in the literature, there are no clinical evidences that show the superiority of any of these. In this article, we report an analysis of the "state of the art" and our case series of surgical reinsertion with the double approach transosseous technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2003 and 2013, 26 patients underwent surgical reinsertion, either for acute or for chronic lesions of distal biceps tendon. We evaluated 21 acute cases treated with double approach using DASH and SECEC Elbow Scores. The mean follow-up was 22 months. Range of motion, supination and flexion strength were also recorded.

RESULTS

Mean final ROM was 6-132° in F/E and 89-0-87° in P/S; flexion and supination strength were 96 and 88 % compared to the opposite side. The main complications were two cases of heterotopic ossifications: one asymptomatic fracture of the proximal radius and one temporary neurapraxia of the radial nerve.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysing the literature and our outcomes, we underline the importance of timing for surgery, in young and compliant patients, with a valid rehabilitation protocol for excellent results. The choice of surgical technique remains controversial, and we believe that the double approach transosseous reinsertion is a safe, costless and relatively non-invasive technique, offering satisfactory results when performed early.

Distal biceps brachii tendon repairs: a single-incision technique using a cortical button with interference screw versus a double-incision technique using suture fixation through bone tunnels

BACKGROUND

Distal biceps brachii tendon repairs performed with a tension slide technique using a cortical button (CB) and interference screw are stronger than those based on suture fixation through bone tunnels (BTs) in biomechanical studies. However, clinical comparison of these 2 techniques is lacking in the literature.

PURPOSE

To perform a clinical comparison of the single-incision CB and double-incision BT techniques.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Distal biceps tendon ruptures repaired through either the single-incision CB or double-incision BT technique were retrospectively identified at a single institution. Patients>1 year out from surgery were assessed for range of motion, strength, and complications, and they completed a DASH questionnaire (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand).

RESULTS

Patients in the CB group (n=20) were older (52±9.5 vs 43.7±8.7 years; P=.008), had a shorter interval from surgery to evaluation (17.7±5 vs 30.8±16.5 months; P=.001), and were less likely to smoke (0% vs 28.5%; P=.02) compared with the BT patients (n=21). DASH scores were similar between groups (4.46±4.4 [CB] vs 5.7±7.5 [BT]; P=.65). Multivariate analysis revealed no differences in range of motion or strength between groups. More CB patients (30%; n=6) experienced a complication compared with those in the BT group (4.8%; n=1) (P=.04), and these complications were predominantly paresthesias of the superficial radial nerve that did not resolve. There were no reoperations or repair failures in either group.

CONCLUSION

Both the single-incision CB and double-incision BT techniques provided excellent clinical results. Complications were more common in the single-incision CB group and most commonly involved paresthesias of the superficial radial nerve.

Mini-open incision for distal biceps repair by suture anchors: follow-up of eighteen patients

BACKGROUND

This clinical trial was done to describe a mini approach for distal biceps repair using two or three suture anchors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty patients have undergone surgical repair over the last 10 years. All patients were males with mean age 46.8 (range 35-72), and dominant arm was involved in 70 %. Eighteen patients were evaluated with subjective and objective criteria including patient's satisfaction, active range of motion (ROM), and maximum isometric strength (in supination and flexion) using Cybex dynamometer. Functional scoring included Mayo Elbow Performance Score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score and Oxford Elbow Score.

RESULTS

Eighty percent of patients were highly satisfied, with excellent results as defined by Mayo and Oxford Elbow score. Compared to contralateral, the active ROM was not affected in flexion and extension, but pronation and supination were decreased by 5°-10° in two cases. One of eighteen showed hypoesthesia of first and second fingers, and one of eighteen showed a symptomatic heterotopic ossification. There were no reruptures.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical repair of distal biceps tendon with a mini-single-incision as we described provides patient's satisfaction and very good results with respect to ROM and functional scoring, with a low complication rate.

Proper placement of the distal biceps tendon during repair improves supination strength--a biomechanical analysis

BACKGROUND

Anatomic repair of the distal biceps tendon can be difficult to achieve. This study was designed to compare the effect of anatomic and nonanatomic repairs on forearm supination torque. A nonanatomic repair re-establishes the footprint radial and more anterior to the tuberosity apex, whereas an anatomic repair re-establishes the footprint ulnar and more posterior to the tuberosity apex.

METHODS

Eight fresh frozen cadaver arms were surgically prepared and mounted on an elbow simulator. Controlled loads were applied to the long head and short head in positions of pronation, neutral, and supination. This was done with intact tendons and then repeated with repaired tendons that were repaired either anatomically (ulnar position) or nonanatomically (radial position).

RESULTS

All anatomic repairs showed no difference compared with intact tendon measurements. In comparing anatomic and nonanatomic repairs, we found no differences in the supination torque when the forearm was in 45° of pronation. However, when the arm was in neutral rotation, we found that 15% less supination torque was generated by the nonanatomic repair. When the arm was tested in 45° of supination, we found that 40% less supination torque was generated in the nonanatomic repair (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

This study supports the idea that an anatomic repair of the biceps tendon onto the ulnar side of the radial tuberosity is important. If the tendon is repaired too radially, the biceps will lose the cam effect and may not be able to generate full supination torque when the forearm is in neutral rotation or in supination.

Double intramedullary cortical button versus suture anchors for distal biceps tendon repair: a biomechanical comparison

PURPOSE

The aim of this biomechanical in vitro study was to compare the novel technique of double intramedullary cortical button (DICB) fixation with the well-established method of suture anchor (SA) fixation for distal biceps tendon repair.

METHODS

A matched-pair analysis (24 human cadaveric radii) was performed with respect to cyclic loadings and failure strengths. Twelve specimens per group were cyclically loaded for 1,000 cycles at 1.5 Hz from 5 to 50 N and from 5 to 100 N, respectively. The tendon-bone displacement was optically analysed using the Image J Software (National Institute of Health). Afterwards, all specimens were pulled to failure. Maximum load to failure and mode of failure were recorded.

RESULTS

All DICB constructs passed the cyclic loading test, whereas 4 of the 12 specimens within the SA group failed by anchor pull-out. Cyclic loading showed a mean tendon-bone displacement of 0.6 ± 1.4 mm for the DICB group and 1.4 ± 1.4 mm for the SA group (n.s.) after 1,000 cycles with 50 N, and a mean displacement of 2.1 ± 2.4 mm for the DICB group and 3.5 ± 3.7 mm for the SA group (n.s.) after 1,000 cycles with 100 N. Load to failure testing showed a mean failure load of 312 ± 76 N and a stiffness of 67.1 ± 11.7 N/mm for the DICB technique. The mean load to failure for the SA repair was 200 ± 120 N (n.s.) and the stiffness was 55.9 ± 21.3 N/mm (n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

The novel technique of DICB fixation showed small tendon-bone displacement during cyclic testing and reliable fixation strength to the bone in load to failure. Moreover, all DICB constructs passed cyclic loadings without failure. Based on the current findings, a more aggressive postoperative rehabilitation may be allowed for the DICB repair in clinical use.

Proximity of the posterior interosseous nerve during cortical button guidewire placement for distal biceps tendon reattachment

PURPOSE

To assess the distance between the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) and a distally and ulnarly directed guide pin for placement of a cortical button to reattach a distal biceps tendon.

METHODS

We used 10 fresh frozen cadaveric upper limbs without deformities and identified the PIN through a dorsal approach. We performed a single incision anterior surgical approach, detached the biceps tendon, and drilled a 1.6-mm K-wire from the base of the biceps tendon insertion in 3 different trajectories, sequentially, measuring the following drilling angles: 30° distal and 30° ulnar, 30° ulnar, and 30° distal. In each testing scenario, we measured the minimum distance in millimeters between the tip of the K-wire and the PIN using a digital caliper through the dorsal incision.

RESULTS

The mean and median distances from the guide wire to the PIN in each testing trajectory were each significantly different from each other, with the 30° ulnar direction leading to the greatest distance from the nerve.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the 30° ulnar drilling direction resulted in a significantly greater distance from the guide wire to the PIN, in comparison with the distal-ulnar and the distal-only trajectories.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study helps define the safe trajectory for guide wire placement in bicortical fixation of distal biceps tendon injuries.

Reconstruction of distal biceps tendon ruptures with a cortical button

PURPOSE

Reconstruction of the ruptured distal biceps tendon is best done with a cortical button technique according to recent biomechanical studies. However, clinical outcome studies that evaluate the cortical button reconstruction technique are scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of a cortical button reconstruction technique in patients with a traumatic distal biceps tendon rupture.

METHODS

Twenty-two patients with 24 traumatic distal biceps tendon ruptures underwent surgical treatment. Reconstructions were done using the Endobutton or Toggle Loc. Postoperative evaluation consisted of ROM, strength, stability, neurological status and standard radiographs in AP view and lateral direction. The Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) questionnaires were also obtained.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 22 months, the mean strength for flexion was 100 % (SD 21.3) and for supination 97 % (SD 7.8), compared to the contralateral side. There were complications in 8 patients (36 %), and heterotopic ossifications were seen on radiographs in 23 % of patients. Heterotopic ossifications were symptomatic in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The results after distal biceps tendon refixation with a cortical button were good according to ROM, MEPI and qDASH scores and strength. However, this procedure was accompanied with complications; in particular, the formation of heterotopic ossifications was frequently seen, though clinically relevant in only one patient.

Radioulnar space available at the level of the biceps tuberosity for repaired biceps tendon: a comparison of 4 techniques

HYPOTHESIS

It is unknown whether certain methods of distal biceps tendon repair lead to an increased propensity of impingement of the repaired tendon. The purpose of this study was to evaluate various repair techniques in a cadaveric model to determine the radioulnar space available for the repaired biceps tendons.

METHODS

Nine matched pairs of quartered, fresh-frozen cadaveric arms were transected at the level of the humeral mid shaft and the distal radiocarpal joint. Distance measurements and the angular relation of the bicipital tuberosity were measured at 5 forearm pronation-supination positions. These measurements were taken under each of the following conditions: intact native biceps, resected native tendon, suture anchor fixation of the biceps, suspensory suture device fixation of the biceps, tendon repair using a tenodesis technique, and fixation of the tendon using a trough technique.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in radioulnar space available after biceps tendon repair with the forearm in a supinated position. However, when the forearm was in a neutral or pronated position, the suture anchor method consistently had the lowest biceps insertion-to-ulna distance (0.6 to 2.1 cm). All forearm positions, except full supination, showed significant differences in terms of radioulnar space available for the repaired biceps.

DISCUSSION

This study shows that the space available for the biceps tendon decreases with forearm pronation after reconstruction for all repair techniques. It appears that using suture anchors to repair the biceps tendon may predispose the repaired tendon to impingement when compared with other fixation techniques.

A comparison of cortical button with interference screw versus suture anchor techniques for distal biceps brachii tendon repairs

BACKGROUND

Distal biceps brachii tendon repairs performed by a "tension slide technique" with a cortical button and interference screw (CB) are stronger than repairs by suture anchor (SA) techniques in biomechanical studies. However, clinical comparison of the 2 techniques is lacking in the literature.

METHODS

Distal biceps tendon ruptures repaired with either a CB or SA technique through a single incision were identified from 2008 to 2013 at a single institution. Patients more than a year out from surgery completed a Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. In addition, patients were assessed for range of motion, strength, and complications. All assessments were performed by individuals blinded to the surgical technique. Strength and motion values from the operative extremity minus the nonoperative arm values yielded differential values that were averaged and used to compare treatment groups.

RESULTS

The CB (n = 20) and SA (n = 17) groups had similar demographics, except for the time from the surgery to evaluation (18 ± 5 vs 32 ± 15 months, respectively; P = .007). Range of motion differed slightly between the groups. The CB group demonstrated better pronation (0° ± 5° vs -4° ± 10°; P < .05), and the SA group demonstrated better flexion (2° ± 0° vs -3° ± 5°; P < .05) and supination (-2° ± 5° vs -7° ± 12°; P < .05). Strength did not differ significantly between the groups. DASH scores did not significantly differ between the groups with univariate analysis, but multivariate analysis demonstrated slightly better DASH scores with the CB technique (4.5 ± 4.4 vs 10.3 ± 14.9; P < .0009). Complication rates were similar between groups (CB 30%, SA 35%; P > .05).

CONCLUSION

CB and SA techniques provide good clinical results with similar complication rates.