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

Functional evaluation after cortical button fixation for distal biceps ruptures - Is there any difference between manual or non-manual workers?

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare clinical and functional results after distal biceps tendon repair in manual workers vs. non-manual workers.

METHODS

This is a retrospective comparative study which refers to 57 cases with distal biceps tendon rupture, divided in manual workers (24 elbows) and non-manual workers (33), that were treated by a single incision with cortical button and interference screw fixation. Included cases have a minimum of 3 months follow-up, post-operative X-ray and signed informed consent for the investigation.

RESULTS

Supination and flexion strength was higher in manual workers vs. non-manual workers (p-value=0.192 and 0.878, respectively). Nine patients showed loss of range of motion, concerning supination and pronation, and this was correlated to worse functional scores. Functional scores tend to be superior in non-manual workers. Ten patients had heterotopic ossification and 20 patients reported lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve neuropraxia; one had both. Most of them had a full recovery.

CONCLUSION

According to clinical evaluation and post-operative scores, the performed surgical procedure provides good to excellent mid-term functional results. Nevertheless, there were not any differences between manual or non-manual workers.

Acute Distal Biceps Tendon Repair With Cortical Button Offers Good Functional Outcomes: A Retrospective Study Focusing on Range of Motion, Muscle Strength and Pain

Background Distal biceps tendon (DBT) rupture is not one of the most common upper limb injuries. Surgical intervention is recommended for these injuries to restore muscular strength and functionality. Multiple different techniques are documented in the literature, however there is no definitive consensus on the most effective surgical treatment. The objective of this study was to assess the functional results of patients who underwent repair of DBT utilizing cortical button fixation procedures. Methods This study is a retrospective single-unit case series consisting of 54 patients who underwent DBT repair at Heartlands Hospital in Birmingham, United Kingdom. The patients' functional outcomes was assessed by the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS). Results The mean age was 51±11.01 years. Patients were operated on 4.72±7.083 days after the injury. The mean pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) 6 months after the surgery was 0.54±0.50. At 6 months follow-up, the average extension deficit was 2.69° (0-10), flexion 132° (120-140), supination76° (50- 85), and 77° for pronation (78-95). Patients were followed up routinely for 6 months. Mayo Elbow Performance (MEP) Score was utilized to assess the functional outcome and the mean MEP score was 91.43±8.26 which showed excellent functional outcomes for the cohort. Conclusion DBT repair with cortical button fixation yielded favorable functional outcomes at 6 months, notably restoring supination strength. This approach offers anatomical reinsertion while minimizing nerve damage risk.

Reliability and Validity of the Hook Test for Diagnosis of Distal Biceps Tendon Ruptures

PURPOSE

Although the initial description of the distal biceps tendon (DBT) hook test (HT) reported 100% sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp), subsequent retrospective series have demonstrated imperfect validity. The purpose of this investigation was to prospectively assess the validity and reliability of the HT for complete DBT ruptures. We aimed to determine the Sn/Sp and interrater reliability for the HT.

METHODS

A consecutive series of adult patients presenting to our outpatient clinics with an elbow complaint was prospectively examined. Patients were included if they had undergone advanced imaging (magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound) that imaged the DBT and underwent DBT repair. There were four participating surgeons, all of whom were blinded to magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound prior to performing the HT. To determine the Sn/Sp of the HT and advanced imaging, intraoperative findings served as the primary reference standard. The interrater reliability of the HT was calculated for cases in which a primary examiner (surgeon) and secondary examiner (physician assistant or resident) performed the HT.

RESULTS

Of 64 patients who had undergone advanced imaging, 28 (44%) underwent DBT surgery and were included in the assessment of Sn/Sp. The mean age was 49 years, and all patients were men. The Sn and Sp of the HT were 96% and 67%, respectively. Advanced imaging demonstrated 100% Sn and Sp. Twenty-five patients were evaluated by a primary and secondary examiner. The interrater reliability was substantial (Cohen kappa, 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

The Sn and Sp of the HT were 96% and 67%, respectively, when assessed prospectively. Advanced imaging findings (magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound) demonstrated 100% Sn and Sp. The HT can be performed reliably by examiners with varying experience levels. Considering the imperfect validity of the HT, we caution against the use of this examination alone to diagnose DBT ruptures.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic II.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of a Novel Cortical Button System for Distal Biceps Tendon Repair: A Retrospective Study

Background There are a number of different techniques available for the repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures. Recent evidence has revealed satisfactory clinical outcomes for suture button techniques. Aims The aim of this study was to determine if the ToggleLoc^TM soft tissue fixation device (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana) confers satisfactory clinical outcomes in the surgical management of distal biceps ruptures. Methods Twelve consecutive patients underwent distal biceps repair using the ToggleLoc^TM soft tissue fixation device over a two-year period. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were collected by means of validated questionnaires on two occasions. Symptoms and function were quantified using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and the Oxford Elbow Score (OES). Patient-reported health scores were determined using the EQ-5D-3L (European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version) questionnaire. Results The mean initial follow-up time was 10.4 months and the mean final follow-up time was 34.6 months. The mean DASH score at the initial follow-up was 5.9 (se = 3.6), compared to 2.9 (se = 1.0) at the final follow-up (p = 0.30). The mean OES at the initial follow-up was 91.5 (se = 4.1); and 91.5 (se = 5.2) at the final follow-up (p = 0.23). The mean EQ-5D-3L level sum score at the initial follow-up was 5.3 (se = 0.3); and 5.8 (se = 0.5) at the final follow-up (p = 0.34). Discussion The ToggleLoc^TM soft tissue fixation device confers satisfactory clinical outcomes, as determined by PROMS, in the surgical management of distal biceps ruptures.

Two Intramedullary and 1 Extramedullary Cortical Button, With or Without Interference Screw, Show Biomechanical Properties Superior to Native Tendon in Repair of the Distal Biceps Tendon: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Biomechanical Performance

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to use a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the failure strength, maximum strength, stiffness, and displacement of available constructs for distal biceps repair.

METHODS

An NMA was conducted to determine the performance of 2 all-suture suture anchors (2x ASA), 2 intramedullary cortical buttons (2x IM CB), 2 suture anchors (2x SA), extramedullary cortical buttons (EM CB), extramedullary cortical button plus interference screw (EM CB+IFS), interference screw (IFS), single intramedullary cortical button (IM CB), single suture anchor (SA), transosseous suture (TOS), tension slide technique (TST), and tension slide technique plus suture tape (TST+ST). Analysis consisted of arm-based network meta-analysis under Bayesian random-effects model with Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling. Biomechanical outcomes were summarized as treatment effects and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Rank probabilities were calculated and used to generate each treatment's surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve. Biomechanical properties were compared to native tendon. Displacement >10 mm was defined as clinical failure.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included. For failure strength, no construct outperformed the native tendon but 2× SA, IFS, SA, and TOS demonstrated poorer failure strength. For the maximum load to failure, EM CB+IFS outperformed the native tendon. Compared to native tendon, EM CB+IFS, EM CB, and 2×IM CB were stiffer, while 2x SA and IFS were less stiff. No construct demonstrated >10 mm of displacement, but constructs with displacement above the mean (3.5 mm) included 2× ASA, 2xIM CB, and TOS.

CONCLUSIONS

The fixation constructs that consistently demonstrated comparable or better biomechanical properties (failure strength, maximum strength, and stiffness) to native tendon in distal biceps tendon repair were the extramedullary cortical button with or without interference screw and two intramedullary cortical buttons. No construct demonstrated displacement beyond standard definitions for clinical failure.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This network meta-analysis of biomechanical studies suggests that extramedullary cortical button and two intramedullary cortical buttons may be the most stable construct for distal biceps repair fixation, with equivalent or better biomechanical properties compared to native tendon.

Distal biceps repair through a single incision with the use of a knotless cortical button device: Mid-term results

Background

Distal biceps rupture presents with an increasing incidence and evidence suggests that although a surgical repair is not mandatory, it results in superior functional outcomes when compared to non-operative management. As implant technology has advanced, several devices have been utilised and studied in managing this pathology. We present our single-centre experience with the use of the ToggleLoc Ziploop reattachment device, a knotless cortical button implant, using a single-incision technique.

Methods

Retrospective series of 70 consecutive distal biceps tendon repairs, at a mean follow-up of 45.6 months after surgery, using a standardised single implant, single-incision technique, and post-operative rehabilitation programme.

Results

There was one (1.4%) re-rupture in our patient cohort. The range of motion was complete in all patients except for one patient who had symptomatic heterotopic ossification, causing limitation in pronation. Complications were minor with the commonest being transient neuropraxia of the lateral cutaneous nerve of the forearm. The mean Oxford elbow score was 46.9 out of 48, and the patient global impression of change scale was 7 out of 7 in 77% of cases.

Conclusion

Our data support this technique and implant combination when dealing with acute and chronic distal biceps tendon rupture.

All-suture anchors for distal biceps tendon repair: a preliminary outcome study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the clinical outcome of double intramedullary all-suture anchors' fixation for distal biceps tendon ruptures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective case series of patients who underwent primary distal biceps tendon repair with all-suture anchors was conducted. Functional outcome was assessed at a minimum follow-up of at 12 months based on the assessments of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Andrews-Carson Score (ACS), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain. Maximum isometric strength test for flexion and supination as well as postoperative range of motion (ROM) were determined for both arms.

RESULTS

23 patients treated with all-suture anchors were assessed at follow-up survey (mean age 56.5 ± 11.4 years, 96% male). The follow-up time was 20 months (range Q_0.25-Q_0.75, 15-23 months). The following outcome results were obtained: MEPS 100 (range Q_0.25-Q_0.75, 100-100); ACS 200 (range Q_0.25-Q_0.75, 195-200); QuickDASH 31 (range Q_0.25-Q_0.75, 30-31); VAS 0 (range Q_0.25-Q_0.75, 0-0). The mean strength compared to the uninjured side was 95.6% (range Q_0.25-Q_0.75, 80.9-104%) for flexion and 91.8 ± 11.6% for supination. There was no significant difference in ROM or strength compared to the uninjured side and no complications were observed in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Distal biceps tendon refixation using all-suture anchors provides good-to-excellent results in terms of patient-reported and functional outcome. This repair technique appears to be a viable surgical option, although further long-term results are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV (case series).

Results of single-incision distal biceps tendon repair for early-career upper-extremity surgeons

Background

The purpose of this investigation was to assess surgical outcomes after distal biceps tendon (DBT) repair for upper-extremity surgeons at the beginning of their careers, immediately following fellowship training. We aimed to determine if procedure times, complication rates, and clinical outcomes differed during the learning curve period for these early-career surgeons.

Methods

All cases of DBT repairs performed by 2 fellowship-trained surgeons from the start of their careers were included. Demographic data as well as operative times, complication rates, and patient reported outcomes were retrospectively collected. A cumulative sum chart (CUSUM) analysis was performed for the learning curve for both operative times and complication rate. This analysis continuously compares performance of an outcome to a predefined target level.

Results

A total of 78 DBT repairs performed by the two surgeons were included. In the CUSUM analysis of operative time for surgeon 1 and 2, both demonstrated a learning curve until case 4. In CUSUM analysis for complication rates, neither surgeon 1 nor surgeon 2 performed significantly worse than the target value and learning curve ranged from 14 to 21 cases. Mean Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (QuickDASH) (10.65 ± 5.81) and the pain visual analog scale scores (1.13 ± 2.04) were comparable to previously reported literature.

Conclusions

These data suggest that a learning curve between 4 and 20 cases exists with respect to operative times and complication rates for DBT repairs for fellowship-trained upper-extremity surgeons at the start of clinical practice. Early-career surgeons appear to have acceptable clinical results and complications relative to previously published series irrespective of their learning stage.

Operative vs. nonoperative treatment of distal biceps ruptures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Ruptures of the distal biceps tendon are most commonly due to traumatic eccentric loading in the middle-aged male population and can result in functional deficits. Although surgical repair has been demonstrated to result in excellent outcomes, there are few comparative studies that show clear functional benefits over nonoperative management. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the functional outcomes of operative and nonoperative management for these injuries. We hypothesized that operative treatment would be associated with significantly superior outcomes.

METHODS

According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials), Embase, and Web of Science databases. Outcomes of interest included range of motion (ROM), strength, endurance, and patient-reported outcomes including Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scores. Summary effect estimates of the mean difference between operative and nonoperative management for each outcome were estimated in mixed effects models.

RESULTS

Of an initially identified 6478 studies, 62 reported outcomes for a total of 2481 cases (2402 operative, 79 nonoperative), with an overall average age of 47.4 years (47.3 for operative, 50.3 for nonoperative). There were 2273 (98.5%) males and 35 (1.5%) females among operative cases, whereas all 79 (100%) nonoperative cases were males. Operative management was associated with a significantly higher flexion strength (mean difference, 25.67%; P < .0001), supination strength (mean difference, 27.56%; P < .0001), flexion endurance (mean difference, 11.12%; P = .0268), and supination endurance (mean difference, 33.86%; P < .0001). Patient-reported DASH and MEPS were also significantly superior in patients who underwent surgical repair, with mean differences of -7.81 (P < .0001) and 7.41 (P = .0224), respectively. Comparative analyses for ROM and pain VAS were not performed because of limited reporting in the literature for nonoperative management.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare functional and clinical outcomes following operative and nonoperative treatment of distal biceps tendon ruptures. Operative treatment resulted in superior elbow and forearm strength and endurance, as well as superior DASH and MEPS.

Anatomical intramedullary distal biceps tendon fixation. Our first experience

Background

Hypothesis

Study Design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Intramedullary Unicortical Button and All-Suture Anchors Provide Similar Maximum Strength for Onlay Distal Biceps Tendon Repair

PURPOSE

To evaluate the biomechanical profile of onlay distal biceps repair with an intramedullary unicortical button versus all-suture anchors under cyclic loading and maximal load to failure.

METHODS

Twenty paired fresh-frozen human cadaveric elbows were randomized to onlay distal biceps repair with either a single intramedullary button or with two 1.35-mm all-suture anchors. A 1.3-mm high tensile strength tape was used in a Krackow stitch to suture the tendons in both groups. Specimens and repair constructs were loaded for 3,000 cycles and then loaded to failure. Maximum load to failure, mode of failure, and construct elongation were recorded.

RESULTS

Mean (± standard deviation) maximum load to failure for the unicortical intramedullary button and all-suture anchor repairs were 503.23 ± 141.77 N and 537.33 ± 262.13 N (P = .696), respectively. Mean maximum displacement after 3,000 cycles (± standard deviation) was 4.17 ± 2.05 mm in the button group and 2.06 ± 1.05 mm in the suture anchor group (P = .014). Mode of failure in the button group was suture tape rupture in 7 specimens, failure at the tendon-suture interface in 2 specimens, and button pullout in 1 specimen. Anchor pullout was the mode of failure in all suture anchor specimens. There were no tendon ruptures or radial tuberosity fractures in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that onlay distal biceps repair with 2 all-suture anchors has similar maximum strength to repair with an intramedullary button and that both are viable options for fixation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

All-suture anchors and unicortical intramedullary button have similar maximum strength at time zero. Both constructs provide suitable fixation for onlay distal biceps repair.

Arthroscopic Latarjet: 2 or 4 Cortical Buttons for Coracoid Fixation? A Case-Control Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

While 2 screws are traditionally used for coracoid bone block fixation, no gold standard technique has yet been established when using cortical buttons.

PURPOSE

To compare anatomic and clinical outcomes of the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure using either 2 or 4 buttons for coracoid bone block fixation.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 23 patients with 4-button fixation (group 4B) were matched for age at surgery, sex, and follow-up to 46 patients who had 2-button fixation (group 2B). All patients underwent guided arthroscopic Latarjet (using coracoid and glenoid guides), and a tensioning device was used to rigidify the suture button construct and get intraoperative bone block compression. The primary outcome was assessment of bone block positioning and healing using computed tomography scans performed at 2 weeks and at least 6 months after surgery. The mean ± standard deviation follow-up was 49 ± 7 months (range, 24-64 months).

RESULTS

The bone block healing rate was similar in both groups: 91% in group 4B versus 95.5% in group 2B. The transferred coracoid was flush to the glenoid surface in 21 patients (91%) in group 4B and 44 patients (96%) in group 2B (P = .6); it was under the equator in 22 patients (96%) in group 4B and 44 patients (96%) in group 2B (P≥ .99). There was no secondary bone block displacement; the rate of bone block resorption was similar between the groups: 28% in group 4B and 23% in group 2B (P = .71). Patient-reported outcomes, return to sports, and satisfaction were also similar between the groups. The operating time was significantly longer in group 4B (95 vs 75 minutes; P = .009).

CONCLUSION

A 4-button fixation technique did not demonstrate any anatomic or clinical advantages when compared with a 2-button fixation technique, while making the procedure more complex and lengthening the operating time by 20 minutes. A 2-button fixation is simple, safe, and sufficient to solidly fix the transferred coracoid bone block. The use of drill guides allows accurate graft placement, while the use of a tensioning device to rigidify the suture button construct provides high rates of bone block healing with both techniques (>90%).

In vivo evaluation of a new intramedullary distal biceps tendon fixation device

BACKGROUND

Intramedullary fixation in distal biceps tendon repair may be a solution to address specific shortcomings of current fixation techniques. Most investigations are limited to biomechanical evaluation. The purpose of this study was to report the short-term outcomes of an intramedullary fixation device.

METHODS

We evaluated functional and radiographic outcomes at up to 6 months of follow-up. Patients with an acute distal biceps tendon rupture eligible for surgical repair were invited to take part in the study. Ten patients were included in the final analysis. All patients were evaluated both clinically and radiographically at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Outcomes were recorded using a visual analog scale score for pain, the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score. Radiographic evaluation comprised radiographic and computed tomography evaluation.

RESULTS

There were no failures of fixation in the patient group examined. Elbow mobility was symmetrical for all patients from 3 months onward. Supination strength was 86% of the uninjured side at final follow-up. The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score and Mayo Elbow Performance Score at final follow-up were 0 and 100, respectively. Computed tomography images showed no signs of button migration, cortical thinning due to button pressure, or button breakout. The tendon could be followed to the button in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The intramedullary fixation button technique to repair the distal biceps tendon has excellent functional outcomes at 6 months. No adverse reactions of the button on the bone were seen. As this technique minimizes the risk of posterior interosseous nerve injury and has a sufficient bone tunnel to avoid gap formation, this may be a promising new technique for distal biceps tendon rupture refixation.

Acute complete and partial distal biceps tendon ruptures: what have we learned? A review

Acute distal biceps tendon (DBT) pathology includes bicipitoradial bursitis, tendinosis, partial and complete tears.

Diagnosis of complete DBT tears is mainly clinical, whereas in partial tears medical imaging is a valuable addition to the clinical diagnosis.

New insights in clinical and medical imaging of partial tears may reduce time to diagnosis and may guide the treatment plan.

Most complete tears are best treated with primary repair using either a single-incision or double-incision approach with good clinical outcome.

The double-incision technique has a higher risk of heterotopic ossification, whereas a single-incision technique carries a higher risk of nerve-related complications.

Intramedullary fixation may be a viable solution to negate the risk of posterior interosseus nerve lesions in single-incision repairs.

DBT endoscopy can be used to treat low-grade partial tears and tendinosis.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:956-965. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200145

Is Immobilization Necessary for Early Return to Work Following Distal Biceps Repair Using a Cortical Button Technique?: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Improvements in surgical fixation to repair distal biceps tendon ruptures have not fully translated to earlier postoperative mobilization; it is unknown whether earlier mobilization affords earlier functional return to work. This parallel-arm randomized controlled trial compared the impact of early mobilization versus 6 weeks of postoperative immobilization following distal biceps tendon repair.

METHODS

One hundred and one male participants with a distal biceps tendon rupture that was amenable to a primary repair with use of a cortical button were randomized to early mobilization (self-weaning from sling and performance of active range of motion as tolerated during first 6 weeks) (n = 49) or 6 weeks of immobilization (splinting for 6 weeks with no active range of motion) (n = 52). Follow-up assessments were performed by a blinded assessor at 2 and 6 weeks and at 3, 6, and 12 months. At 12 months, distal biceps tendon integrity was verified with ultrasound. The primary outcome was return to work. Secondary outcomes were pain, range of motion, strength, shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) score, and tendon integrity. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used to compare pain, range of motion, strength, and QuickDASH between the groups over time; return to work was assessed with use of independent t tests.

RESULTS

The groups were similar preoperatively (p ≥ 0.16). The average age (and standard deviation) was 44.7 ± 8.6 years. Eighty-three participants (82%) were followed to 12 months. There were no differences between the groups in terms of return to work (p ≥ 0.83). Participants in the early mobilization group had significantly more passive forearm supination (p = 0.04), with passive forearm pronation (p = 0.06) and active extension and supination (p = 0.09) trending toward significantly greater range of motion in the early mobilization group relative to the immobilization group. Participants in the early mobilization group had significantly better QuickDASH scores over time than those in the immobilization group (p = 0.02). There were no differences between the groups in terms of pain (p ≥ 0.45), active range of motion (p ≥ 0.09), or strength (p ≥ 0.70). Two participants (2.0%, 1 in each group) had full-thickness tears on ultrasound at 12 months (p = 0.61). Compliance was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Early motion after distal biceps tendon repair with cortical button fixation is well tolerated and does not appear to be associated with adverse outcomes. No clinically important group differences were seen.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Operative Versus Nonoperative Management for Distal Biceps Brachii Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Both nonoperative and operative treatments have been proposed to manage distal biceps brachii tendon avulsions. However, the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches have not been properly quantified.

PURPOSE

To summarize the current literature on both nonoperative and operative approaches for distal biceps brachii tendon ruptures and to quantify results and limitations. The advantages and disadvantages of the different surgical strategies were investigated as well.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in March 2020 using PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Iscrctn.com, clinicaltrials.gov, greylit.org, opengrey.eu, and Scopus literature databases. All human studies evaluating the clinical outcome of nonoperative treatment as well as different surgical techniques were included. The influence of the treatment approach was assessed in terms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and the Mayo Elbow Performance Index; extension, flexion, supination, and pronation range of motion (ROM); and flexion and supination strength ratio between the injured and uninjured arms. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 1275 studies, 53 studies (N = 1380 patients) matched the inclusion criteria. The results of the meta-analysis comparing operative versus nonoperative approaches for distal biceps tendon avulsion showed significant differences in favor of surgery in terms of DASH score (P = .02), Mayo Elbow Performance Index (P < .001), flexion strength (94.7% vs 83.0%, respectively; P < .001), and supination strength (89.2% vs 62.6%, respectively; P < .001). The surgical approach presented 10% heterotopic ossifications, 10% transient sensory nerve injuries, 1.6% transient motor nerve injuries, and a 0.1% rate of persistent motorial disorders. Comparison of the different surgical techniques showed similar results for the fixation methods, whereas the single-incision technique led to a better pronation ROM versus the double-incision approach (81.5° vs 76.1°, respectively; P = .01).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis showed the superiority of surgical management over the nonoperative approach for distal biceps tendon detachment, with superior flexion and supination strength and better patient-reported outcomes. The single-incision surgical approach demonstrated a slightly better pronation ROM compared with the double-incision approach, whereas all fixation methods led to similar outcomes.

No functional differences in anatomic reconstruction using a one- versus a two-point fixation for distal biceps tendon rupture through a single-incision anterior approach: A prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The distal biceps brachii tendon rupture is a rare injury of the musculoskeletal system. Multiple surgical techniques have been described for distal biceps brachii tendon repairs including suture anchors.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of anatomical distal biceps tendon refixation using either one or two suture anchors for reattachment and to determine whether there are significant clinically important differences on the number of anchors used for refixation.

METHODS

A monocentric, randomized controlled trial was conducted, including 16 male patients with a mean age of 47.4 years (range, 31.0 to 58.0) in Group 1 (two suture anchors for refixation) and 15 male patients with a mean age of 47.4 (range, 35.0 to 59.0) in Group 2 (one suture anchor for refixation). All surgeries were performed through an anterior approach. The outcome was assessed using the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, the Andrews Carson Score (ACS) and by isokinetic strength measurement for the elbow flexion after six, twelve, 24 and 48 weeks. Radiographic controls were performed after 24 and 48 weeks.

RESULTS

No significant differences between both groups were evident at any point during the follow-up period. A continuous improvement in outcome for both groups could be detected, reaching an OES: 46.3 (39.0 to 48.0) vs. 45.5 (30.0 to 48.0), MEPS: 98.0 (85.0 to 100.0) vs. 99.0 (85.0 to 100.0), DASH: 3.1 (0.0 to 16.7) vs. 2.9 (0.0 to 26.7), ACS: 197.0 (175.0 to 200.0) vs. 197.7.

Acute distal biceps tendon repair using cortical button fixation results in excellent short- and long-term outcomes : a single-centre experience of 102 patients

AIMS

Acute distal biceps tendon repair reduces fatigue-related pain and minimizes loss of supination of the forearm and strength of flexion of the elbow. We report the short- and long-term outcome following repair using fixation with a cortical button techqniue.

METHODS

Between October 2010 and July 2018, 102 patients with a mean age of 43 years (19 to 67), including 101 males, underwent distal biceps tendon repair less than six weeks after the injury, using cortical button fixation. The primary short-term outcome measure was the rate of complications. The primary long-term outcome measure was the abbreviated Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score. Secondary outcomes included the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), EuroQol five-dimension three-level score (EQ-5D-3L), satisfaction, and return to function.

RESULTS

Eight patients (7.8%) had a major complication and 34 (33.3%) had a minor complication. Major complications included re-rupture (n = 3; 2.9%), unrecovered nerve injury (n = 4; 3.9%), and surgery for heterotopic ossification (n = 1; 1.0%). Three patients (2.9%) overall required further surgery for a complication. Minor complications included neurapraxia (n = 27; 26.5%) and superficial infection (n = 7; 6.9%). A total of 33 nerve injuries occurred in 31 patients (30.4%). At a mean follow-up of five years (1 to 9.8) outcomes were available for 86 patients (84.3%). The median QuickDASH, OES, EQ-5D-3L, and satisfaction scores were 1.2 (IQR 0 to 5.1), 48 (IQR 46 to 48), 0.80 (IQR 0.72 to 1.0), and 100/100 (IQR 90 to 100), respectively. Most patients were able to return to work (81/83, 97.6%) and sport (51/62,82.3%). Unrecovered nerve injury was associated with an inferior outcome according to the QuickDASH (p = 0.005), OES (p = 0.004), EQ-5D-3L (p = 0.010), and satisfaction (p = 0.024). Multiple linear regression analysis identified an unrecovered nerve injury to be strongly associated with an inferior outcome according to the QuickDASH score (p < 0.001), along with infection (p < 0.001), although re-rupture (p = 0.440) and further surgery (p = 0.652) were not.

CONCLUSION

Acute distal biceps tendon repair using cortical button fixation was found to result in excellent patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life. Although rare, unrecovered nerve injury adversely affects outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1284-1291.

[Acute rupture of the pectoralis major muscle at the musculotendinous junction : Case report of a rare injury and literature review]

Die Pectoralis-major-Ruptur (PMR) ist eine seltene Verletzung, die v. a. beim Kraftsport aufritt. Vorgestellt wird der Fall eines 31-jährigen Profibasketballspielers, der sich beim Bankdrücken eine Komplettruptur am muskulotendinösen Übergang des M. pectoralis major (PM) zugezogen hatte. Drei Wochen nach dem erlittenen Trauma erfolgte bei persistierenden Schmerzen und Kraftdefizit die Refixation des PM. Drei Monate postoperativ konnte der Patient bei vollem Bewegungsumfang schmerzfrei in den Basketballsport zurückkehren. Die Verletzungsentität wird vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen Literatur diskutiert und das operative Vorgehen im Detail dargestellt.

Low mental health scores are associated with worse patient-reported outcomes and difficulty with return to work and sport after distal biceps repair

Background

Most patients have successful outcomes with minimal limitations after distal biceps repair, but a minority continues experiencing functional constraints. We hypothesize that low scores on a validated mental health measure correlate with worse patient-reported outcomes and increased difficulty with return to work and sport.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients who underwent distal biceps repair with a single-incision cortical button technique and immediate mobilization. Patient-reported outcome data were available at 1 year or later for 33 (85%) patients. The primary outcomes were American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons-Elbow (ASES-E) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Visual Analog Scale for pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (QuickDASH), and Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) quality-of-life assessment.

Results

All patients were male, with a median age of 49 years (range, 28-65). None had reruptures, and 1 (3%) had superficial wound dehiscence that healed without further surgery. Eleven (33%) had postoperative neuropraxia, 6 of which resolved completely. At latest follow-up, the median Visual Analog Scale was 0 (range, 0-5; mean, 1), and median ASES-E functional score was 36 (range, 24-36; mean, 34). Median Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score was 92 (range, 41-100). The median QuickDASH was 5 (range, 0-50; mean, 11). More than half of the patients with VR-12 mental component score (MCS) < 50 (5 of 9, 56%) reported difficulty with work activities, compared with 4% (1 of 24) of patients with an MCS ≥ 50 (P = .001). Most patients (8 of 9, 89%) with an MCS < 50 also reported difficulty with return to sporting activities, compared with only 8% (2 of 24) of patients with MCS ≥ 50 (P < .0001). Patients with an MCS < 50 (n = 9) had significantly worse ASES-E functional scores (median, 34; range, 27-36) and QuickDASH scores (median 23, range 0-43), compared with those with an MCS ≥ 50 (ASES-E: median, 36; range, 24-36; P = .033; QuickDASH: median, 2; range, 0-50; P = .026). Most patients (17 of 24, 71%) with MCS ≥ 50 had a perfect score of 36 on the ASES-E functional outcome score, compared with only 22% (2 of 9) among patients with MCS < 50.

Conclusion

Patients who undergo distal biceps repair show excellent functional patient-reported outcomes at 1-year and later follow-up. Lower scores on the VR-12 MCS are associated with worse patient-reported outcome scores and difficulty with return to work and sporting activities.

A new intramedullary fixation method for distal biceps tendon ruptures: a biomechanical study

BACKGROUND

Various techniques have been described for distal biceps tendon reinsertion. Although high success rates have been reported, all current techniques have specific shortcomings, with complications such as heterotopic ossification, nerve damage, and gap formation. The purpose of the present study was to biomechanically evaluate a new intramedullary fixation device that might reduce the risk of posterior interosseous nerve lesions. We therefore compared the fixation strength of this new intramedullary button with an extramedullary placed classic extracortical button.

METHODS

A standard bicortical button was compared to the new intramedullary fixation device using fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens. The fixation strengths were tested both cyclically and statically. Load to failure and method of failure were also recorded.

RESULTS

There were no failures during the cyclic load testing. The mean tendon-bone displacement was 0.87 ± 0.13 mm for the bicortical group and 0.83 ± 0.13 mm for the new button. During static loading, the mean load to failure for the bicortical group was 296 ± 97 N, whereas the new button group showed a higher mean load to failure of 356 ± 37 N. Breakout through the anterior cortex was recorded in 2 of 6 bicortically placed buttons and 1 of 6 in the new device.

CONCLUSIONS

The new intramedullary fixation device yields comparable loads to failure compared with currently used techniques in a biomechanical setup. These findings together with the theoretical advantages suggest that this technique may be a valuable solution for the repair of distal biceps tendon rupture.

Acute distal biceps tendon ruptures: anatomy, pathology and management - state of the art

All patients with acute complete distal biceps tendon ruptures who are not low demand or medically unfit to proceed with surgery are offered operative repair. This restores arm shape, supination strength and function, and decreases their cramping symptoms. Surgical repair technique varies significantly depending on location and training centre. Nuances in technique and appropriate implant selection need to be noted in order to achieve a strong repair allowing early active range of motion. Intimate knowledge of distal biceps tendon anatomy is key to avoid complications associated with the different approaches. The cumulative body of evidence on complications, coupled with knowledge of the different biomechanical construct strengths of the alternative methods of fixation, points to the use of the cortical button technique without the addition of an interference screw. Subtle variations in drill hole positioning on the bicipital tuberosity secures either an anatomic or non-anatomic repair. Anatomic repair results in greater supination peak torque and fatigue strength, and in greater flexion fatigue strength. It is advisable to perform an anatomic repair in elite athletes or those patients who significantly rely on supination strength and endurance for their livelihood. A universal postoperative protocol is suggested for all repairs.

Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis: All-Suture Anchor Onlay Technique

Surgical management for biceps pathologies has advanced to provide stronger fixation and to be less invasive. The long head of the biceps tendon has been recognized as a common contributor to anterior shoulder pain and is often associated with other glenohumeral pathologies such as SLAP lesions, rotator cuff tears, and subacromial impingement. Both tenotomy and tenodesis have shown to be effective in ameliorating pain associated with the long head of the biceps tendon. However, decreased muscle function and cosmetic concerns are seen at higher rates after tenotomy compared with tenodesis. One option for the treatment of biceps tendon pathology includes mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Lower reoperation rates are observed after subpectoral biceps tenodesis than after suprapectoral biceps tenodesis, with thoughts that releasing the tendon from its sheath and the bicipital groove relieves the patient of most associated pain. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe in detail our preferred operative technique for mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis using an onlay technique with all-suture anchor fixation.

[Rupture of the distal biceps tendon]

With an incidence of 3% of all biceps tendon injuries, rupture of the distal biceps tendon is a rare injury but can be associated with significant functional impairment of the elbow. In case of a complete rupture, the diagnosis can be made clinically with a pronounced power deficit, in particular for supination of the forearm. In cases of unclear symptoms magnetic resonance imaging should be included. Regarding the therapeutic approach, there is general consensus in the current literature that surgical treatment with anatomical reconstruction of the tendon footprint is superior to the conservative approach. Various surgical techniques with good biomechanical and clinical results are currently available but no clear superiority of a single technique has so far been demonstrated.

Biomechanical Comparison of Onlay Distal Biceps Tendon Repair: All-Suture Anchors Versus Titanium Suture Anchors

BACKGROUND

A rupture of the distal biceps tendon is the most common tendon rupture of the elbow and has received increased attention in the past few years. Newly developed all-suture anchors have the potential to minimize surgical trauma and the risk of adverse events because of the use of flexible drills and smaller drill diameters.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to biomechanically compare all-suture anchors and titanium suture anchors for distal biceps tendon repair in cadaveric specimens. The hypothesis was that all-suture anchors would show no differences in load to failure or displacement under cyclic loading compared with titanium suture anchors.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Sixteen unpaired, fresh-frozen human cadaveric elbows were randomized to 2 groups, which underwent onlay distal biceps tendon repair with 2 anchors. Bone mineral density at the radial tuberosity was evaluated in each specimen. In the first group, distal biceps tendon repair was performed using all-suture anchors. In the second group, titanium suture anchors were applied. After cyclic loading for 3000 cycles, the repair constructs were loaded to failure. The peak load to failure as well as repair construct stiffness and mode of failure were determined.

RESULTS

The mean (±SD) peak load was 293.53 ± 122.15 N for all-suture anchors and 280.02 ± 69.34 N for titanium suture anchors (P = .834); mean stiffness was 19.78 ± 2.95 N/mm and 19.30 ± 4.98 N/mm, respectively (P = .834). The mode of failure was anchor pullout for all specimens during load to failure. At the proximal position, all-suture anchors showed a displacement of 1.53 ± 0.80 mm, and titanium suture anchors showed a displacement of 0.81 ± 0.50 mm (P = .021) under cyclic loading. At the distal position, a displacement of 1.86 ± 1.04 mm for all-suture anchors and 1.53 ± 1.15 mm for titanium suture anchors was measured (P = .345). A positive correlation between bone mineral density and load to failure was observed (r = 0.605; P = .013).

CONCLUSION

All-suture anchors were biomechanically equivalent at time zero to titanium suture anchors for onlay distal biceps tendon repair. While the proximally placed all-suture anchors demonstrated greater displacement than titanium suture anchors, the comparable displacement at the distal position as well as the similar load and mechanism of failure make this difference unlikely to be clinically significant.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

All-suture anchors performed similarly to titanium suture anchors for onlay distal biceps tendon repair at time zero and represent a reasonable alternative.