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

Outcomes of distal biceps repair at two-year follow-up

PURPOSE

This single-centre study aimed to review the postoperative outcomes of distal biceps avulsion repair using a single incision with the endo-button technique.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed of a single surgeon series of distal biceps repairs performed consecutively from September 2016 to September 2020. At two years, outcome measures included Oxford Elbow Score (OES), range of movement (ROM), complications and ongoing issues.

RESULTS

Forty-five distal biceps tendon repairs were performed on 43 patients with a mean follow-up of 3.2 years (1.1-5.3). The average OES was 46 (11-48), and 90% of patients recovered a comparable range of movement to the contralateral side. Two patients developed re-rupture (4%) on days 0 and 9 of surgery, but there were no late re-ruptures of the repair.

CONCLUSION

Short-term outcomes from distal biceps tendon repair show low complication rates, high patient satisfaction and good functional outcomes. The results would support acute surgical treatment of active, working-age, patients with distal biceps tendon ruptures.

Suture Button Repair for Lateral Ulnar Collateral Ligament in Terrible Triad Injuries: Surgical Technique

Terrible triad injuries are typically treated surgically to restore elbow stability, as the radial head acts as a secondary stabilizer to valgus stress, while the coronoid provides stability against posterior elbow dislocations. The lateral ulnar collateral ligament (LUCL) is also commonly injured in terrible triad of the elbow injuries, and if not repaired, leads to posterolateral rotatory instability. Depending on the fracture pattern and size, the radial head fracture may be treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), arthroplasty, or excision, whereas the coronoid fracture is most commonly treated with ORIF. If treated, these injuries are managed prior to LUCL fixation to avoid stressing the LUCL repair. We describe a technique for treatment of a LUCL injury with a suture button. When repairing the LUCL, a Kocher approach is used to visualize the LUCL footprint, which is then reattached to the insertion point on the lateral epicondyle using a suture button. The purpose of this study was to provide a step-by-step approach to using this surgical technique and an associated postoperative protocol.

Anatomy of the biceps brachii osseous footprint: study of 100 radii and literature review

Biceps brachii (BB) tendon rupture is frequent in young males and may require surgical repair. Non-anatomic reinsertion leads to loss of strength in supination. The main aim of the present study was to describe the anatomy of the osseous footprint of the distal BB tendon. The dimensions of the footprint of the distal BB insertion were analyzed in 100 dry cadaver radii, using MicroScribe 3D software. Insertion area, assimilated to an ellipse, was calculated from 4 points (medial, lateral, cranial and caudal) determining the two axes of the ellipse. Mean footprint length, width and area were 18 mm (range, 7-24 mm), 9 mm (range, 4-15 mm), and 129 mm² (range, 46-266 mm²), respectively. Intra- and inter-observer correlation coefficients were satisfactory: κ = 0.75 and κ = 0.7, respectively. The present study reported BB footprint dimensions in 100 radii, providing a basis to guide surgical treatment of distal BB tendon rupture. Non-anatomical restoration of the BB tendon footprint leads to poorer clinical and biomechanical results; precise knowledge of the footprint is necessary for anatomical repair.

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.

Distal biceps tendon repair: cost analysis of single- versus double-incision techniques in an ambulatory surgery center

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the cost differences for single- versus double-incision distal biceps repair at an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) given that similar clinical outcomes have been reported between these methods.

Methods

A retrospective review of financial and medical records was completed for patients who underwent distal biceps tendon repair over a three-year period at a single private orthopedic practice. Variables analyzed include the cost to the ASC of operative time and the cost of differential surgical supplies, specifically implants and disposable supplies.

Results

A total of 10 surgeons performed 104 repairs. Nine surgeons performed repairs through a single incision with use of cortical button or suture anchor fixation, and one surgeon performed transosseous suture fixation through a double-incision approach. The median tourniquet time and procedure length were 31 (interquartile range [IQR] 27-40) and 44 (IQR 39-54) minutes for single-incision repairs and 68 minutes (IQR 61-75) and 110 minutes (IQR 103-113) for double-incision repairs which were significantly different across groups (P < .001, P < .001). The total surgical cost (operative time, implants, and disposables) for single-incision repairs was a median of $758 (IQR 732-803) compared with $606 (IQR 567-629) for double-incision repairs (P < .001). However, the procedure cost with implants (not including disposables) was not significantly different for single- (median [Mdn] = $500 [IQR 475-552]) and double-incision repairs (Mdn $552 [IQR 514-564]) (P = .14) although the procedure cost with disposables (not including implant costs) favored single-incision repairs (Mdn = $478 [IQR 452-523]) over double-incision repairs (Mdn = $606 [IQR 567-629]) (P < .001).

Conclusion

In a single surgery center, single-incision distal biceps repairs utilizing an implant were performed more expeditiously than double-incision repairs with a transosseous technique but incurred greater surgical costs. Differences in surgical time cost between the two approaches could be consequential for ASCs and other stakeholders.

Clinical Evaluation of the Reconstruction of the Biceps Brachii using Triceps Graft

Objective  Clinical and functional evaluation of the surgical treatment for chronic injury of the distal biceps brachii applying a surgical technique with grafting of the distal triceps brachii tendon. Methods  A study based on a review of the medical records and clinical evaluation of the patients submitted to surgical treatment for chronic injury to the distal insertion of the biceps brachii between February 2015 and February 2017. In a 12-month-minimum postoperative follow-up, 7 patients were evaluated regarding the range of motion of the operated and non-operated elbows, flexion, upper-limb extension and supination with a digital dynamometer, the hook test, the satisfaction index, and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) intruments. Results  During the postoperative functional evaluation, no patient reported dissatisfaction with the esthetic outcome of the incisions, and all of them were satisfied/very satisfied with the range of motion and strength of the operated limb. No neurovascular complications, surgical site infection or tendon rupture were observed. On the MEPS and DASH scales, all patients scored 100 and 0 respectively. The mean flexion was of 133.5° on the operated side, versus 139.2° on the non-operated side. The mean extension was of 5° on the operated side versus 0° on the non-operated side. The supination was of 86.5° versus 90°, and the pronation, 80° versus 80°, when comparing the operated and non-operated sides respectively. The mean flexion, extension and supination corresponded respectively to 92.5%, 96.4% and 86.8% of those of the non-operated limb. Conclusion  Recosntruction of the distal biceps brachii with triceps grafting seems to be an effective and safe option for the treatment of chronic distal biceps injuries.

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.

Outcomes of distal biceps tendon repair using a dual incision, cortical button technique: a single surgeon study

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes, function, complication rates, and radiographs in a series of patients with distal biceps tendon repair using the dual incision cortical button technique by a single surgeon. By having a single surgeon perform the surgery, the technique is standardized to all patients. Twenty-two patients consented to participate in the study. The average time from surgery to review was 2.2 years. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the DASH, Oxford, and Mayo Elbow Performance Scores.

Methods

Range of movement was assessed and compared to the unaffected limb using a goniometer. Isometric flexion and supination strength was tested using a standardized dynamometer—both measurements taken by a single physiotherapist. Radiographs were discussed at the time of the review by 2 orthopedic surgeons to check for heterotopic ossification.

Results

The mean DASH score was 6.3 postsurgery at the time of follow-up. There was no significant difference in active range of movement between the repaired and nonrepaired arm in flexion, extension, supination, or pronation. Four radiographs showed evidence of heterotopic ossification (HTO)—none showed synostosis. For patients with HTO, there was evidence that supination was inhibited compared to those patients who did not have HTO.

Conclusion

Our study found that at an average of 2 years of follow-up these patients had good outcomes clinically with no major complications. HTO was present in only 4 patients, and there was a significant difference in supination compared to those who did not have HTO. These patients had an average DASH of 14 compared to a score of 4.5 in those who did not have an HTO. The study showed that the dual incision cortical button repair remains a procedure with excellent patient outcomes at the risk of HTO.

Failure of the Interference Tenodesis Screw After Distal Bicep Tendon Repair With a Suture Button Technique: A Report of Two Cases

Distal bicep tendon rupture is an uncommon form of bicep rupture which is typically seen in middle-aged men. We identified two cases in which the distal bicep tendon rupture was repaired with an EndoButton™ (Smith and Nephew, Watford, UK) and interference screw with preservation of the EndoButton™​ but a failure of the interference screw. This report highlights the addition of a FiberWire^® (Arthrex, Inc., Naples, Florida, USA) construct to secure the interference screw from backing out and emphasizes the EndoButton™ as the primary biomechanical anchor in maintaining a successful distal bicep tendon repair. We question the necessity of both the interference screw and EndoButton™ in the fixation of the distal bicep tendon and recommend that securing the interference tenodesis screw with an additional FiberWire^® may provide a more secure fixation of the screw as compared to traditional approaches.

Single- versus double-incision technique for the treatment of distal biceps tendon rupture

AIMS

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate differences in functional outcomes and complications between single- (SI) and double-incision (DI) techniques for the treatment of distal biceps tendon rupture.

METHODS

A comprehensive search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central databases was conducted to identify studies reporting comparative results of the SI versus the DI approach. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was used for search strategy. Of 606 titles, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria; methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Random- and fixed-effects models were used to find differences in outcomes between the two surgical approaches. The range of motion (ROM) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores, as well as neurological and non-neurological complications, were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 2,622 patients were identified. No significant differences in DASH score were detected between the techniques. The SI approach showed significantly greater ROM in flexion (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.508; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.904 to -0.112) and pronation (SMD -0.325, 95% CI -0.637 to -0.012). The DI technique was associated with significantly less risk of lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve damage (odds ratio (OR) 4.239, 95% CI 2.171 to 8.278), but no differences were found for other nerves evaluated. The SI group showed significantly fewer events of heterotopic ossification (OR 0.430, 95% CI 0.226 to 0.816) and a lower reoperation rate (OR 0.503, 95% CI 0.317 to 0.798).

CONCLUSION

No significant differences in functional scores can be expected between the SI and DI approaches after distal biceps tendon repair. The SI approach showed greater flexion and pronation ROM and a lower risk of heterotopic ossification and reoperation. The DI approach was favourable in terms of lower risk of neurological complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1608-1617.

Primary repair of severely retracted nonchronic distal biceps tendon rupture using 2-incision anterior-approach repair

Background

Primary repair of a severely retracted distal biceps tendon can pose a technical challenge. We sought to describe the method and clinical outcomes of a surgical technique used as an adjunct to the conventional anterior single-incision repair for severely retracted biceps tendons. This technique involves a second anterior incision proximally to retrieve a severely retracted tendon followed by passing the tendon through a soft-tissue tunnel.

Methods

We identified 30 consecutive patients who had undergone a primary distal biceps tendon repair by an anterior-approach cortical-button technique. A phone survey was conducted for patient-reported outcomes. Patients returned for bilateral forearm supination strength testing in 2 positions (45º of pronation and 45º of supination). Outcomes were compared between patients who required a second incision and high elbow flexion (>60º) because of severe tendon retraction and those who did not require such interventions.

Results

No significant differences in elbow range of motion, supination strength, or patient-reported outcomes were found between the 2 groups of patients (P > .05). Regarding supination strength, the operated side was significantly weaker than the uninjured side in both pronated and supinated positions (P < .05). Both the operated and uninjured sides showed significantly higher torque in a pronated position than in a supinated position (P < .05).

Conclusions

Severely retracted distal biceps tendons can be successfully repaired using a second incision and high elbow flexion without negative effects on the outcomes. Supination strength was decreased following an anterior-approach cortical-button technique, but patient-reported outcomes were not affected negatively.

No functional differences in anatomic reconstruction with one vs. two suture anchors after non-simultaneous bilateral distal biceps brachii tendon rupture: a case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Surgical reattachment of the tendon is still the gold standard for ruptures of the distal biceps brachii tendon. Several fixation techniques have been described in the literature, with suture anchors being one of the most common fixation techniques. Currently, there is no data available on how many anchors are required for a safe and stable refixation. In this case report clinical data of a patient with non-simultaneous bilateral distal biceps tendon ruptures treated with a different number of suture anchors for each side (one vs. two) are demonstrated.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 47-year-old factory worker suffered a rupture of the distal biceps tendon on both arms following two different occasions. The left side was fixed using a single suture anchor, while refixation on the right side was performed with two anchors. The patient was prospectively followed for one year. Functional outcome was assessed using the Andrews Carson Score (ACS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score after six, twelve, 24 and 48 weeks. Furthermore, an isokinetic strength measurement for flexion strength was performed after 24 and 48 weeks. After 48 weeks the patient presented with excellent functional outcome scores and no follow-up complications. During the follow-up period, no differences in the functional scores nor in the isokinetic flexion strength measurement could be detected. Furthermore, no radiological complications (like heterotopic ossifications) could be detected in the postoperative radiographs after one year.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomic reattachment of the distal biceps tendon is a successful operative treatment option for distal biceps tendon ruptures. Suture anchor fixation remains one of the most common techniques, as it allows fast surgery and provides good results with respect to range of motion (ROM) and functional scoring according to the current literature. However, the number of anchors required for a stable fixation remains unclear. As indicated by our presented case, we hypothesize, that there are no significant differences between a one-point or a two-point fixation. In the presented case report, no intraindividual differences between the usage of one versus two suture anchors were evident in the short-term follow-up.

Mid-term clinical and functional outcomes of distal biceps tendon repair: A comparative study of two surgical fixation techniques

Objective:

Acute rupture of the distal biceps tendon is relatively uncommon, and surgical repair is advocated for acute injuries to restore strength and function. Numerous techniques are described in the literature, with no true consensus regarding the optimal method of fixation. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures, clinical outcomes and complications for patients undergoing distal biceps tendon repair using two fixation techniques: cortical button and suture anchor.

Methods:

A retrospective single-unit case series of 51 cases (50 patients) underwent distal biceps tendon repair, comprising 19 cortical button and 32 suture anchor fixations. Patients were assessed using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and overall satisfaction. Clinical outcomes and complications were reviewed from patient records.

Results:

Thirty-eight (76.5%) patients responded to DASH questionnaires with a mean follow-up of 189 weeks (11.5–425 weeks). Mean DASH scores for cortical button and suture anchor groups were 6.2 (0–30.8) and 3.3 (0–16.7), respectively ( p = 0.21). Eight patients (16%) reported lateral cutaneous neuropraxia in the early post-operative period. All but two of these patients experienced complete resolution at the final follow-up. One patient had heterotrophic ossification, which did not require any further intervention. There was one re-rupture (suture anchor), but the patient declined further surgical intervention.

Conclusion:

There were no statistically significant differences in the patient-reported outcome measures, overall satisfaction and complication rate between patients undergoing either method of fixation.

Level of evidence:

III

Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Orthopaedic Literature, Part I: Upper Extremity: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) attempts to define the patient's experience of treatment outcomes. Efforts at calculating the MCID have yielded multiple and inconsistent MCID values. The purposes of this review were to describe the usage of the MCID in the most recent orthopaedic literature, to explain the limitations of its current uses, and to clarify the underpinnings of MCID calculation. Subsequently, we hope that the information presented here will help practitioners to better understand the MCID and to serve as a guide for future efforts to calculate the MCID. The first part of this review focuses on the upper-extremity orthopaedic literature. Part II will focus on the lower-extremity orthopaedic literature.

METHODS

A review was conducted of the 2014 to 2016 publications in The Journal of Arthroplasty, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Foot & Ankle International, Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, and Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. Only clinical science articles utilizing patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores were included in the analysis. A keyword search was then performed to identify articles that calculated or referenced the MCID. Articles were then further categorized into upper-extremity and lower-extremity publications. MCID utilization in the selected articles was subsequently characterized and recorded.

RESULTS

The MCID was referenced in 129 (7.5%) of 1,709 clinical science articles that utilized PROMs: 52 (40.3%) of 129 were related to the upper extremity, 5 (9.6%) of 52 independently calculated MCID values, and 47 (90.4%) of 52 used previously published MCID values as a gauge of their own results. MCID values were considered or calculated for 16 PROMs; 12 of these were specific to the upper extremity. Six different methods were used to calculate the MCID. Calculated MCIDs had a wide range of values for the same PROM (e.g., 8 to 36 points for Constant-Murley scores and 6.4 to 17 points for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] scores).

CONCLUSIONS

Determining useful MCID values remains elusive and is compounded by the proliferation of PROMs in the field of orthopaedics. The fundamentals of MCID calculation methods should be critically evaluated. If necessary, these methods should be corrected or abandoned. Furthermore, the type of change intended to be measured should be clarified: beneficial, detrimental, or small or large changes. There should also be assurance that the calculation method actually measures the intended change. Finally, the measurement error should consistently be reported.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The MCID is increasingly used as a measure of patients' improvement. However, the MCID does not yet adequately capture the clinical importance of patients' improvement.

Diagnosis and Management Strategies for Distal Biceps Rupture

Rupture of the distal biceps tendon most commonly is secondary to mechanical overload during eccentric muscle contraction. Due to deficits of strength and endurance, surgical repair usually is recommended. Although both single- and double-incision approaches have been described, double-incision techniques have been shown to better re-create the native anatomic insertion. However, excellent and comparable clinical outcomes have been demonstrated with both techniques. Fixation with a cortical button and interference screw has been shown to be the strongest construct biomechanically; however, several modern constructs provide adequate strength. Surgical technique should focus on restoration of anatomy, early range of motion, and prevention of complications. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(6):e492-e501.].

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.

A comparative clinical and functional assessment of cortical button versus suture anchor in distal biceps brachii tendon repair

PURPOSE

The studies comparing the fixation methods being used for the ruptured distal biceps brachii tendon reinsertion show similar outcomes of cortical button and suture anchors usage, however, longer follow-up studies remain necessary. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical and functional three-year outcomes of the cortical button in contrast to the suture anchor fixation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study comprised of 28 males on average 3 years after surgical reinsertion of the distal biceps brachii tendon with the use of a cortical button (Group I, n = 11) or a suture anchor (Group II, n = 17). The outcomes assessed were range of elbow joint and forearm motion (ROM), arm circumferences, visual analogue scale (VAS), Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI), Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (Quick DASH) and forearm flexor and supinator muscle torques measured under isometric and isokinetic conditions.

RESULTS

The comparison between the two studied groups revealed no statistically significant differences in ROM (p = 0.24-1.00), circumferences (p = 0.15-0.50), VAS (p = 0.71), MEPI (p = 0.23), Quick DASH (p = 0.61) or in the obtained muscle torque values (p = 0.07-1.00). However, differences in supination ROM between the surgical and non-surgical side were found in both groups (p = 0.01-0.02), and differences in pronation (p = 0.02) were found in Group II. The muscle torque values obtained in the surgical, dominant limb were lower than those in the nonsurgical, nondominant limb.

CONCLUSION

The comprehensive comparison of three-year outcomes of cortical button versus suture anchor fixations did not favour one fixation method over the other, and the results justify the clinical usage of both methods.

Analysis of technical feasibility and neurovascular safety of endoscopic distal biceps repair: a cadaveric study

BACKGROUND

This cadaveric study was designed to analyze the safety of endoscopic repair of distal biceps tendon (DBT) tears using 2 reattachment techniques. We evaluated the proximity of neurovascular structures to endoscopy portals; iatrogenic injury to neurovascular, musculotendinous, and osseous structures; and changes in compartment pressures. We hypothesized that an all-endoscopic repair of the ruptured DBT would be technically safe and the risk of iatrogenic injury would be low.

METHODS

A 2-portal endoscopic tendon repair was performed in 28 fresh-frozen cadaveric elbows with button devices (with or without interference screws) (n = 17) and suture anchors (n = 11). Dissection was performed, and neurovascular, musculotendinous, and osseous structures were assessed for iatrogenic injury. The repair construct (tendon-tuberosity contact area and implant placement site) was evaluated, and compartment pressures were measured. Statistical analysis was performed to determine significant differences in iatrogenic injury, compartment pressure changes, and tendon-bone contact area between different devices.

RESULTS

The lateral cutaneous nerve, cephalic vein, and radial artery were in close proximity to the portals. The button group showed a significantly higher number of iatrogenic injuries than the anchor group (P = .036). All-suture anchor repair showed a significantly higher contact area (mean, 85 mm²) than repairs with all other devices (P < .001). Compartment pressures increased by 2-4 mm in each of the 3 compartments tested (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic DBT repair was technically feasible with both fixation techniques. Button devices were associated with a significantly higher number of iatrogenic injuries. Endoscopic repair with dual suture anchors was safe in cadavers; however, further clinical results are necessary to establish the clinical safety of this technique.

Distal biceps tendon rupture: advantages and drawbacks of the anatomical reinsertion with a modified double incision approach

Background

Distal biceps tendon rupture occurs more often in middle-aged male population, involving the dominant arm. In this retrospective study, it’s been described the occurrence of the most frequent adverse events and the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing surgical repair of distal biceps tendon rupture with the modified Morrey’s double-incision approach, to determine better indications for patients with acute tendon injury.

Methods

Sixty-three patients with acute distal biceps tendon rupture treated with a modified double-incision technique between 2003 and 2015 were retrospectively evaluated at a mean 24 months of follow-up. Clinical evaluation including range of motion (ROM) and isometric strength recovery compared to the healthy contralateral side assessment, together with documentation of nerve injury, was performed. Patients were asked to answer DASH, OES and MEPS scores.

Results

The ROM recovery showed excellent results compared to the healthy contralateral side.

The reported major complications included: one case of proximal radio-ulnar synostosis, 3 cases of posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) palsy and one case of a-traumatic tendon re-rupture. Concerning minor complications, intermittent pain, ROM deficiency < 30° in flexion/extension and pronation/supination, isometric flexion strength deficiency < 30% and isometric supination strength deficiency < 60%, lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve (LACBN) injury, were observed. The average DASH score was 8.5; the average OES was 41.5 and the MEPS was 96.3.

Conclusion

The Morrey modified double-incision technique finds its indication in young and active patients if performed within 2 weeks from injury. If performed by experienced surgeons, the advantages can exceed the drawbacks of possible complications.

Reconstruction of the distal biceps tendon using semitendinosus grafting: Description of the technique

Distal ruptures of the biceps are rare when compared to proximal ruptures, with a different epidemiology and mechanism of trauma. There is no exact pathophysiology, though the hypovascular distal insertion and the mechanical impact during movement should be considered important factors. The surgical treatment of chronic cases presents worse prognosis due to muscle shortening with tendon retraction, making anatomical repair of the injury difficult, requiring the use of grafts for its reconstruction. This is a prospective study involving four patients with chronic distal biceps injury. The tendons were reconstructed with an autologous graft from the semitendinosus tendon from the ipsilateral knee and secured to the radial tuberositywith the help of two anchors. The surgical technique proved to be a simple and viable procedure for the reconstruction of chronic ruptures of the distal biceps.

Management of Biceps Tendon Pathology: From the Glenoid to the Radial Tuberosity

Management of proximal and distal biceps tendon pathology is evolving. The long head of the biceps tendon, if inflamed, may be a pain-producing structure. In appropriately indicated patients, a symptomatic long head of the biceps tendon can be surgically managed via tenotomy, tenodesis, and/or superior labrum anterior to posterior repair. In some patients, primary superior labrum anterior to posterior pathology can be managed via biceps tenodesis. Determining which procedure is most appropriate and which technique and implant are preferred for a given patient with biceps tendon pathology is controversial. Less debate exists with regard to the timing of distal biceps tendon repair; however, considerable controversy exists with regard to selection of an appropriate surgical technique and implant. In addition, the treatment of patients with a chronic and/or retracted distal biceps tendon tear and patients in whom distal biceps tendon repair fails is extremely challenging. Orthopaedic surgeons should understand the anatomy of, nonsurgical and surgical treatment options for, and outcomes of patients with proximal or distal biceps tendon pathology.

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.

Retrospective Evaluation of Surgical Anatomical Repair of Distal Biceps Brachii Tendon Rupture Using Suture Anchor Fixation

BACKGROUND To date, no consensus has been reached regarding the preferred fixation method to use in the repair of distal biceps brachii tendon rupture. The aim of this study was to clinically and functionally (Mayo Elbow Performance Index, MEPI) assess the upper limb after surgical anatomic reinsertion of the distal biceps brachii tendon with the use of suture anchor fixation method with regard to postoperative time and limb dominance, and to assess postoperative complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS The sample comprised 18 males (age 52.09±8.89 years) after surgical anatomical distal biceps brachii reinsertion using suture anchor fixation. A comprehensive clinical and functional evaluation and pain assessment were performed. RESULTS In terms of postoperative complications, an isolated case of surgical site sensory disturbances was noted. Circumferences (p-value 0.21-1.00) and ROM (p-value 0.07-1.00) were similar in the operated and nonoperated limbs. The isometric torque (IT) values of muscles flexing and supinating the forearm were comparable in both limbs (p-value 0.14-0.95), but in patients with the operated dominant limb, the mean IT value was not higher than the value obtained in the nonoperated nondominant one. The MEPI indicated good and excellent results (80.00±15.00-90.00±8.66 points), but a detailed individual analysis showed that reported scores were not in line with objectively measured features. CONCLUSIONS The results of the comprehensive retrospective evaluation justify the clinical use of suture anchors fixation method in the surgical anatomical reinsertion of a ruptured distal biceps brachii tendon. The assessment of a patient should always report both subjective and objective measures.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.