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

Is the Complication Rate in the Surgical Repair of the Distal Biceps Tendon Rupture Influenced by the Timing, Type of Incision and Method of Fixation?

Background

Distal biceps tears are uncommon injuries, typically leading to significant loss of elbow flexion and supination strength; surgical repairs restore muscular strength and endurance. The aim of this study was to compare the complication rate of early (< 21 days) vs delayed (> 21 days) repair and the effect of types of incision and fixation methods used in the repair.

Methods

A total of 86 cases were retrospectively reviewed, and 66 cases were included in the study after exclusion. Different preoperative and intraoperative variables and postoperative outcome measures were recorded. We analysed the effects of early and delayed repair, types of incision and fixation methods on the complications.

Results

31 had an early, and 35 had delayed distal biceps repair. The mean follow-up was 14.92 weeks. 13.6% had major, and 40.9% had minor complications. No significant difference was noted in complications between the two groups (54.8% vs 54.3%). Higher complications were observed when surgery was done using a single anterior incision compared to 2 anterior incisions (68.8% vs 16.7%, p=0.0002). Overall, higher (76.3% vs 25.9%, p=0.0001) complications were noted in patients where fixation was done using a cortical button & interference screw in comparison to the cortical button alone.

Conclusion

No significant difference in complication was noted between early and delayed repair. However, more complications were noted in the single anterior incision compared to the two anterior incision technique. Higher complications were also observed with the cortical button and interference screw fixation method compared to the cortical button alone.

Distal biceps reconstruction: a long-term follow-up of the complications and durability of the single-incision power optimizing cost-effective (SPOC) repair

Background

The Single-Incision Power Optimizing Cost-Effective Repair (SPOC) method reattaches the distal biceps tendon to its original posterior anatomic footprint and utilizes the anterior cortex of the supinated radius for fixation. The purpose of the study was to define the long-term complications and durability of the SPOC method.

Methods

Two hundred and eighteen patients underwent the SPOC repair of distal biceps ruptures from 2008 to 2020, with 185 having at least 1-year follow-up data. The average follow-up was 50.1 months. Information regarding smoking, body mass index, interval between injury and surgery, peripheral nerve injury, heterotopic ossification, vascular injury, re-rupture, chronic regional pain syndrome, fracture of the radius, loss of motion, pain with use, and deformity were acquired.

Results

No complication occurred beyond the third postoperative month. No patient complained of severe lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve-related symptoms. Major complications exclusive of re-rupture occurred include 1 case of heterotopic ossification and 1 deep infection. Major complications with re-ruptures occurred in 9 patients (4.8%). Seven of the re-ruptures (78%) were associated with an unexpected forceful contraction within the first 4 weeks postop. All complications aside from 1 minor complication occurred in the chronic group. Long term follow-up revealed no re-ruptures and high satisfaction rate with return of strength, motion, and biceps profile.

Conclusion

The safety profile of the SPOC repair is consistent with those of other published repairs. Major complications were associated with prolonged intervals between injury and reconstruction. Re-ruptures were associated with worker's compensation status and patient noncompliance with postoperative protocols.

Safe Drill Trajectory for Anatomic Repair of Distal Biceps Tendon Through a Single Incision: A Cadaveric Study

PURPOSE

We sought to determine the safest drill trajectory to avoid injury to the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) when performing a repair of a distal biceps tendon to an anatomic location through an anterior, single-incision approach using cortical button fixation.

METHODS

A standard anterior approach was performed in 10 cadaveric specimens to expose the distal biceps attachment. Three drill holes were made in the radial tuberosity from the center of the anatomic footprint for the distal biceps tendon insertion with the forearm fully supinated. Holes were made in 30° distal, transverse, and 30° proximal directions. Each hole was made by angling the trajectory from an anterior to posterior and ulnar to radial direction, leaving adequate bone on the ulnar side to accommodate an 8-mm tunnel for the purpose of docking the biceps tendon into bone. The proximity of each drill trajectory to the PIN was determined by making a second incision on the dorsum of the proximal forearm. A K-wire was passed through each hole, and the distance between the PIN and K-wire was measured for each trajectory.

RESULTS

The distally directed drill hole placed the trajectory wire closest to the PIN (mean distance, 5.4 mm), contacting the K-wire in 3 cases. The transverse drill trajectory resulted in contact with the PIN in 1 case (mean distance, 7.6 mm). The proximal drill trajectory appeared safest, with no PIN contact (mean distance, 13.3 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cadaveric study, the proximal drill trajectory resulted in the widest clearance from the PIN.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

When performing repair of a distal biceps tendon to the anatomic location on the tuberosity, the drill trajectory from the center of the biceps footprint should be radial and proximal to provide the greatest separation between the drill guide and the PIN.

Short-term outcome of unicortical, intramedullary repair of distal biceps ruptures - A retrospective cohort study

Background

Modern distal biceps reconstruction techniques generally have satisfactory outcomes, but are not without complications. Posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) palsy is a rare but potentially devastating complication of bicortical metal button fixation. Recently, a unicortical, intramedullary, repair technique utilizing a suture anchor has been described. The primary aim of this study was to compare short-term functional and patient-reported outcomes and complication rates in patients receiving unicortical intramedullary repair (UR) with suture anchor against those receiving bicortical repair (BR) with metallic button. We hypothesized that UR would have equally satisfactory outcomes without the complication profile.

Methods

Retrospective chart review was conducted for all patients undergoing operative fixation of distal biceps tendon ruptures from 2015 to 2021 at our tertiary referral center. Twenty patients received BR, and eight patients received UR. Patient demographics and surgical complications were compared. QuickDASH scores at two-month and latest in-person and telehealth postoperative visits, as well as elbow and forearm range of motion at last clinical visit, were collected and analyzed.

Results

Average patient age in the BR & UR cohorts were 49.3 ± 9.3 and 42.1 ± 6.2 years, respectively, with a male predominance. There was no statistical difference in patient age, sex, hand dominance, injury laterality, injury chronicity, and follow-up duration. Range of motion was comparable and excellent in both groups. Latest follow-up was 3.0 ± 0.5 years in the BR and 1.5 ± 0.4 years in the UR cohorts. QuickDASH scores improved between the two-month and latest time points in each cohort however did not differ significantly in head-to-head comparison. Complications included a case of PIN palsy, distal biceps tendon rerupture, and lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve (LABC) neuropraxia in the BR group and two cases of LABC neuropraxia in the UR group. The number needed to treat (NNT) for the prevention of one additional case of PIN palsy using UR is 22 patients.

Discussion

Short-term functional and patient-reported outcomes in traditional BR and newly reported UR of distal biceps tendon ruptures are comparable and excellent. UR did not have higher failure rate despite follow-up periods beyond what is typically reported for tendon reruptures. In this limited retrospective cohort study, UR also did not encounter postoperative PIN palsy and had an NNT of 22 patients. In the appropriate clinical setting, this provides early evidence supporting the utilization of unicortical intramedullary suture anchor fixation of distal biceps tendon ruptures as well as associated perioperative interventions such as preoperative nerve blocks.

Reconstruction of chronic distal biceps ruptures by dermal matrix

OBJECTIVES

Distal biceps tear is uncommon, with well-recognized risk factors and typical clinical presentation. Delays in surgical treatment lead to several challenges, such as tendon retraction and tendon degeneration. We present a surgical technique using a sterilized acellular dermal matrix, which provides a solution for a challenging pathology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We present a detailed surgical technique of distal biceps reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix, performed in 4 patients, with an average time to diagnosis of 36 days (range, 28-45 days). Demographics, clinical data, range of motion and subjective satisfaction were collected.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 18 months, all 4 patients showed full range of motion and strength, complete recovery and previous work resumed without pain. No complications appeared during this time.

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed distal biceps tear reconstruction by acellular dermal matrix showed promising results. Meticulous surgical technique using this matrix provided excellent reconstruction, with very solid anatomical repair and exceptionally good fixation, good clinical outcome and satisfied patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Intramedullary, unicortical repair of distal biceps tendon rupture

Historically-used bicortical repair of distal biceps tendon rupture are at risk for posterior interosseous nerve palsy. Here we present a technique, and associated case report, utilizing unicortical repair with a suture cortical button device for this injury. The described technique provides robust fixation and avoids the rare, but potentially devastating complication of posterior interosseous nerve palsy.

Distal biceps tendon repair via new knotless endobutton fixation: A biomechanical study

BACKGROUND

Distal biceps tendon repair using endobutton fixation has shown the best biomechanical results in terms of pullout strength. Here, we compared Sethi's enhanced tension adjustable endobutton technique known as the "tension slide technique" to a new knotless endobutton fixation technique without a post-fixation screw. Our new approach is as effective as the tension slide technique in terms of pullout strength and gapping after early mobilization.

METHODS

A biomechanical cadaveric study with 16 paired arms was performed. With the radius held in place, the distal biceps tendon was loaded at 100 N for 500 cycles and the load was then increased until failure. Gapping after loading cycles and maximum load to failure were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

Median bone-tendon gapping was 5.77 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 4.84-9.11) for tension slide technique and 4.72 mm (IQR 1.77-6.16) for the knotless fixation (p = 0.047). Median load to failure was 257.87 N (IQR 222.07-325.35) in the tension slide technique group and 407.78 N (IQR 358.54-485.20) in the knotless group (p = 0.047).

DISCUSSION

The knotless endobutton provides better pullout strength and elongation results compared to the tension slide technique without the use of an interference screw, allowing early mobilization in order to faster return to daily living activities.Level of evidence: Basic science study.

Distance of the Posterior Interosseous Nerve From the Bicipital (Radial) Tuberosity at Varying Positions of Forearm Rotation: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study With Clinical Implications

BACKGROUND

The proximity of the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) to the bicipital tuberosity is clinically important in the increasingly popular anterior single-incision technique for distal biceps tendon repair. Maximal forearm supination is recommended during tendon reinsertion from the anterior approach to ensure the maximum protective distance of the PIN from the bicipital tuberosity.

PURPOSE

To compare the location of the PIN on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) relative to bicortical drill pin instrumentation for suspensory button fixation via the anterior single-incision approach in varying positions of forearm rotation.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive laboratory study.

METHODS

Axial, non-fat suppressed, T1-weighted MRI scans of the elbow were obtained in positions of maximal supination, neutral, and maximal pronation in 13 skeletally mature individuals. Distances were measured from the PIN to (1) the simulated path of an entering guidewire (GWE-PIN) and (2) the cortical starting point of the guidewire on the bicipital tuberosity (CSP-PIN) achievable from the single-incision approach. To radiographically define the location of the nerve relative to constant landmarks, measurements were also made from the PIN to (3) the prominent-most point on the bicipital tuberosity (BTP-PIN) and (4) a perpendicular plane trajectory from the bicipital tuberosity exiting the opposing radial cortex (PPT-PIN). All measurements were subsequently compared between positions of pronation, neutral, and supination. In supination only, BTP-PIN and PPT-PIN measurements were made and compared at 3 sequential axial levels to evaluate the longitudinal course of the nerve relative to the bicipital tuberosity.

RESULTS

Of the 13 study participants, mean age was 38.77 years, and mean body mass index was 25.58. Five participants were female, and 5 left and 8 right elbow MRI scans were reviewed. The GWE-PIN was significantly greater in supination (mean ± SD, 16.01 ± 2.9 mm) compared with pronation (13.66 ± 2.5 mm) (P < .005). The mean CSP-PIN was significantly greater in supination (16.20 ± 2.8 mm) compared with pronation (14.18 ± 2.4 mm) (P < .013).The mean PPT-PIN was significantly greater in supination (9.00 ± 3.0 mm) compared with both pronation (1.96 ± 1.2 mm; P < .001) and neutral (4.73 ± 2.6 mm; P < .001). The mean BTP-PIN was 20.54 ± 3.0, 20.81 ± 2.7, and 20.35 ± 2.9 mm in pronation, neutral, and supination, respectively, which did not significantly differ between positions. In supination, the proximal, midportion, and distal measurements of BTP-PIN did not significantly differ. The proximal PPT-PIN distance (9.08 ± 2.9 mm) was significantly greater than midportion PPT-PIN (5.85 ± 2.4 mm; P < .001) and distal BTP-PIN (2.27 ± 1.8 mm; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This MRI study supports existing evidence that supination protects the PIN from the entering guidewire instrumentation during anterior, single-incision biceps tendon repair using cortical button fixation. The distances between the entering guidewire trajectory and PIN show that guidewire-inflicted injury to the nerve is unlikely during the anterior single-incision approach.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

When a safe technique is used, PIN injuries during anterior repair are likely the result of aberrant retractor placement, and we recommend against the use of retractors deep to the radial neck. Guidewire placement as close as possible to the anatomic footprint of the biceps tendon is safe from the anterior approach. MRI evaluation confirms that ulnar and proximal guidewire trajectory is the safest technique when using single-incision bicortical suspensory button fixation.

Distal Biceps Tendon Repair and Reconstruction

Distal biceps tendon ruptures can result in functionally significant loss of supination and flexion strength, as well as decreased resistance to fatigue. Although the diagnosis of distal biceps tendon ruptures remains straightforward, substantial debate continues with regards to surgical indications, pertinent surgical anatomy, single- versus double-incision surgical technique, and fixation options. This review discusses the latest evidence-based literature regarding distal biceps tendon repair/reconstruction including types of tears, demographics, clues for diagnosis, surgical indications, anatomy with special attention to how the distal tendon inserts distally and the relevant tuberosity anatomy (height and cam effect), common reconstruction techniques (single- vs double-incision and single-incision power optimizing cost-effective technique), fixation techniques (bone tunnels, distal biceps button, interference screw, button plus screw), surgical technique pearls, postoperative rehabilitation, postoperative outcomes, as well as the treatment of chronic tears with special reconstruction techniques including Achilles allograft, pedicled latissimus transfer, and the use of a free innervated gracilis.

Supination torque following single- versus double-incision repair of acute distal biceps tendon ruptures

BACKGROUND

Compared with single-incision (SI) distal biceps repair, double-incision (DI) repair has been described as permitting a more anatomic repair. We hypothesized that DI repair would result in greater terminal supination torque compared with SI repair for acute distal biceps ruptures.

METHODS

Patients were included if they sustained an isolated, acute distal biceps rupture repaired between January 2012 and December 2017. Isometric forearm supination torque in 4 positions was measured using a validated uniaxial torque-testing device. Testing took place at least 12 months from surgery. The primary outcome was supination torque in the 60° supinated position. Secondary outcomes included supination torque in other forearm positions and functional outcome scores.

RESULTS

The study included 37 patients: 15 underwent repair with the DI technique and 22 with the SI technique. The mean age was 47.3 years, the median follow-up time was 28.1 months, and demographic data were similar between cohorts. Mean supination torque, relative to the unaffected side, was 61% (95% confidence interval, 45%-77%) for DI repair vs. 80% (95% confidence interval, 69%-92%) for SI repair in the 60° supinated position (P = .036). In a multivariable linear regression model controlling for arm dominance, age, follow-up time, and workers' compensation status; SI repair was associated with greater mean supination torque than DI repair by 20% (P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to our hypothesis, we found a 20% mean improvement in terminal supination torque for acute distal biceps ruptures repaired with the SI technique compared with the DI technique. This finding may have clinical significance for the more discerning, high-demand patient.

Posterior Interosseous Nerve Proximity to Cortical Button Implant for Distal Biceps Repair With Single and 2-Incision Approaches

PURPOSE

Fixation with a cortical button is the biomechanically strongest surgical approach for distal biceps repair, and utilization of the 2-incision approach may provide a more anatomical repair and improved terminal supination strength. The risk of injury to the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) associated with this approach requires further investigation.

METHODS

A distal biceps repair with a cortical button was performed on 10 cadavers, 5 utilizing the single-incision approach and 5 utilizing the 2-incision approach. Contrast was injected into the radial nerve and computed tomography scans were obtained. The distance between the drilled cortical perforation and the PIN was measured.

RESULTS

The mean distance from the cortical perforation to the PIN was not significantly different between approaches (9.4 mm and 8.8 mm). A PIN entrapment was seen in 0 out of 5 for the single-incision approach and 1 out of 5 for the 2-incision approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Distal biceps repair with cortical button fixation places the PIN at risk of injury regardless of the approach used. Methods of fixation that require bicortical drilling should be especially avoided when using the 2-incision approach.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Distal biceps repair utilizing bicortical drilling for fixation through a 2-incision approach poses high risk of injury to the PIN and should be avoided.

Intramedullary Cortical Button Repair for Distal Biceps Tendon Rupture: A Single-Center Experience

PURPOSE

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical outcome and complication rate of intramedullary cortical button repair for distal biceps tendon rupture (partial and complete tears).

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2014, a total of 28 patients with an acute distal biceps tendon rupture underwent intramedullary cortical button repair. Twenty-four patients (mean age, 49 years) with a mean follow-up of 28 months were included in the study. Twenty patients were examined clinically and by maximum isometric strength testing in flexion (at 90°) and supination of both arms. Twenty-four patients completed functional scores including the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Andrews-Carson-Score (ACS) and the shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire. Furthermore, follow-up radiographs of 24 patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared with the contralateral elbow, the active range of motion (ROM) was the same. The mean strength for flexion was 100.8% ± 14% and for supination 93.1% ± 22% compared with the uninjured side. The mean MEPS for all patients was 95.6 ± 8.2, the mean ACS 194.2 ± 9.4 and the QuickDASH 3.8 ± 7.6. Heterotopic ossification (HO) was seen on radiographs in 46% of patients, but was symptomatic in only 1 patient. One patient suffered a tendon rerupture, and 1 asymptomatic button migration was seen in the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Intramedullary cortical button repair provides good results with respect to strength, ROM, and functional outcomes. Because the posterior cortex is not violated, the risk of iatrogenic posterior interosseous nerve injury is minimized. However, the patient should be warned of a high prevalence of postoperative HO.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

How to Avoid Posterior Interosseous Nerve Injury During Single-Incision Distal Biceps Repair Drilling

BACKGROUND

The posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) is occasionally damaged during distal biceps tendon repair. But to our knowledge, no studies have examined the position of the PIN in relation to the bicipital tuberosity in full supination, which is the recommended position during single-incision distal biceps repair or reconstruction QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the anterior safe zone when exposing the anterior tuberosity with the arm in supination? (2) When drilling the radial tuberosity for bicortical button placement in full supination, how should the drill be angled to avoid PIN injury?

METHODS

Fifteen adult cadaver elbows had the PIN dissected around the proximal radius. The position of the PIN was measured relative to the most ulnar aspect of the radius at three sites in full supination: at the bicipital tuberosity (bicipital tuberosity-PIN), 10 mm proximal to the bicipital tuberosity (bicipital tuberosity-proximal), and 10 mm distal to the bicipital tuberosity (bicipital tuberosity-distal). We made another measurement by drawing a line from the lateral humeral epicondyle to the radial styloid. The point where the PIN intersects this line, when viewed laterally and measured from the lateral humeral epicondyle, was marked and measured to indicate where it wraps around the radius laterally (PIN-lateral). The last measurement (bicipital tuberosity-lateral) was made where the line from the lateral humeral epicondyle to the radial styloid intersected the position of the bicipital tuberosity. This was determined by the point where a perpendicular line from the bicipital tuberosity was drawn laterally to meet with the lateral line. We did this to establish if the PIN adopts its most lateral position on the radius at the same level as the bicipital tuberosity.

RESULTS

The anterior safe zone in the approach to the biceps tuberosity extends approximately 15 mm from its prominence (mean, 20.7 mm; range, 16.0-24.1 mm). The PIN crosses the lateral midline from anterior to posterior at 46.0 mm (range, 31.2-67.0 mm) from the lateral epicondyle (lying directly opposite the bicipital tuberosity at nearly the same level); therefore, the drill exit should be posterior to lateral midline while aiming proximally to the bicipital tuberosity.

CONCLUSION

Our anterior safe zone found that the PIN travels from an anterior position on the radius, when measuring 1 cm proximal to the bicipital tuberosity to a lateral position on the radius at the level of the bicipital tuberosity prominence (on the contralateral cortex), to a slightly more posterior position on the radius 1 cm distal to the bicipital tuberosity. Typically, the PIN sits directly opposite the biceps tuberosity, often directly on the cortex of the radius when the forearm is in full supination.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Because of these findings, perpendicular bicortical drilling starting at the bicipital tuberosity should be avoided. A more proximal and ulnar drilling angle is recommended. Defining a safe zone for an anterior approach seems to be clinically unhelpful due to the high anatomical variability that exists for the position of the PIN around the proximal radius. Future studies could attempt to confirm our findings with the analysis of noncadaveric imaging in three different planes using such modalities as MRI to avoid the effects of tissue distortion during cadaveric preparation and dissection.

Use of cortical buttons for the fixation of the distal biceps tendon in combination with the double-incision technique-the relationship between the drill trajectory and the proximity to the posterior interosseous nerve: a cadaveric study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this cadaveric study was to investigate different defined drill trajectories through the radial tuberosity for the placement of a cortical button and their proximity to the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) by using the double-incision technique.

METHODS

A total of 10 elbows from 5 fresh entire cadavers were used in this study. Detachment of the distal biceps tendon was performed to simulate its rupture. A standardized double-incision approach was performed, and the radial tuberosity was exposed in full pronation. A drill hole was applied perpendicular through the center of the tuberosity. Another 8 drill holes were applied with the same starting point at the tuberosity with defined trajectories. A cortical button was then placed through the center hole. The distances between the PIN and the exit holes of the different trajectories were measured. The cortical button was analyzed regarding muscle entrapment as well as its closest distance to the PIN.

RESULTS

Contact of the PIN and the drill hole was observed for 6 of the 9 trajectories; only the proximal-ulnar, ulnar, and ulnar-distal trajectories had no contact with the PIN in any of the experiments. No contact of the cortical button and the PIN was observed for the ulnar and distal-ulnar drill trajectories only. The minimal distance to the PIN was 1.6 mm for both.

CONCLUSION

Because of the potential risk of PIN injuries, the use of cortical button fixation in combination with the double-incision approach cannot be recommended.

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.

Clinical Outcomes and Complications of Cortical Button Distal Biceps Repair: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Objectives. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the clinical outcomes and complications of the cortical button distal biceps fixation method. Material and Methods. All methods followed the PRISMA guidelines. Included studies had to describe clinical outcomes and complications after acute distal biceps repair with cortical button fixation. Eligibility criteria also included English language, more than 5 cases with minimum follow-up of 6 months, and preferably usage of at least one relevant clinical score (MEPS, ASES, and/or DASH) for final outcome. A loss of at least 30° in motion—flexion, extension, pronation, or supination—and a loss of at least 30% of strength were considered an unsatisfactory result. Results. The review identified 7 articles including 105 patients (mean age 43.6 years) with 106 acute distal biceps ruptures. Mean follow-up was 26.3 months. Functional outcome of ROM regarding flexion/extension and pronation/supination was satisfactory in 94 (89.5%) and 86 (82%) patients in respect. Averaged flexion and supination strength had been reported in 6/7 studies (97 patients) and were satisfactory in 82.4% of them. The most common complication was transient nerve palsy (14.2%). The overall reoperation rate was 4.8% (5/105 cases). Conclusion. Cortical button fixation for acute distal biceps repair is a reproducible operation with good clinical results. Most of the complications can be avoided with appropriate surgical technique.

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.

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.