Anatomic repair of the distal biceps tendon cannot be consistently performed through a classic single-incision suture anchor technique

Outcomes of utilizing double-incision technique with combination of cortical button and interference screw fixation for distal biceps rupture: A case series

Background

Distal biceps tendon rupture is an injury that causes a significant reduction in strength and endurance. Combined cortical button and interference screw fixation has been utilized via single-incision technique. There are limited data describing this technique utilizing a double-incision approach. This study describes patient outcomes for primary distal biceps repair with combined cortical button and interference screw fixation via double-incision approach.

Methods

This is a case series analysis of patients within a single Midwest institution between January 2006 and February 2020. We examined patient demographics, intraoperative efficiency variables, patient outcomes, and postoperative complications.

Results

Sixty-two cases were included (62 males; 44 acute complete ruptures, 1 acute partial rupture, 8 chronic complete ruptures, 9 chronic partial ruptures). Average operative time was 48 ± 23 min. Nonformal manner postoperative range of motion (ROM) results show 89%-92% within satisfactory elbow ROM parameters. There were two reported postoperative complications, but no instances of neurapraxia, wound dehiscence, synostosis, proximal radius fracture, or fixation failure.

Conclusion

The findings of this study demonstrate that the described technique is safe, reliable, and effective. This will help surgeons determine the best method of fixation and approach with the goal of minimizing postoperative complications in patients with distal biceps ruptures.

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.

Management of distal biceps tendon ruptures: a survey of fellowship-trained subspecialist elbow surgeons

BACKGROUND

There are several approaches to the management of distal biceps tendon ruptures, with no consensus on what constitutes best practice.

METHODS

An online survey queried the perceptions and management of distal biceps tendon ruptures amongst fellowship-trained subspecialty elbow surgeons, which primarily comprised of members of the Shoulder and Elbow Society of Australia, the national subspecialist interest group of the Australian Orthopaedic Association and the Mayo Clinic Elbow Club (Rochester, MN, USA).

RESULTS

One hundred surgeons responded. The median (IQR) experience as orthopedic surgeons amongst respondents was 17 (10-23) years; 78% of respondents saw >10 cases of distal biceps tendon ruptures annually; 95% of respondents would recommend surgery for symptomatic radiologically-confirmed partial tears, the most common indications being pain (83%), weakness (60%), and tear size (48%). Forty-three percent of respondents would have grafts available for tears older than 6 weeks. The one-incision approach (70%) was preferred over two incisions (30%); 78% of one-incision users believed that their repair location was anatomic, compared to 100% of two-incision users. One-incision users were more likely to have encountered lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve (78% vs. 46%) and superficial radial nerve palsies (28% vs. 11%). Two-incision users were more likely to have encountered posterior interosseus nerve palsy (21% vs. 15%), heterotopic ossification (54% vs. 42%), and synostosis (14% vs. 0%). Re-ruptures were the most common cause of reoperation. The more conservative a respondent's postoperative immobilization was, the less likely they were to have ever encountered re-rupture (14% amongst cast users, 29% amongst splint/brace users, 49% amongst sling users, 100% amongst non-immobilizers). Thirty percent of respondents who placed elbow strength restrictions for 6 months postoperatively encountered re-rupture, compared to 40% amongst those who restricted for 6-12 weeks postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The operation rate for repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures amongst subspecialist elbow surgeons is high, as seen in our cohort. However, there is a large variation in the approach toward its management. One incision (anterior) was preferred over two incisions (anterior and posterior). Complications from repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures can be expected even amongst subspecialists, and are associated with surgical approach. The responses imply that more conservative postoperative rehabilitation may be associated with a lower risk of re-rupture.

Tensionable Distal Biceps Tendon Repair With Intramedullary Knotless All-Suture Anchors and FiberLoop w/FiberTag Suture

Distal biceps tendon rupture is commonly repaired via bicortical drilling, extramedullary cortical button placement, and inlay tendon fixation. A retensionable technique with unicortical drilling, intramedullary knotless all-suture anchors placement, and onlay tendon fixation is presented, incorporating up-to-date advances in tendon-bone healing basic science, biceps tendon/radial tuberosity biomechanics, and knotless all-suture implant technology to facilitate radial tuberosity bone preservation, anatomic footprint restoration, improved suture-tendon connection security, and avoidance of drilling and implant-related injury to the posterior interosseous nerve.

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.

Return to Play After Distal Biceps Tendon Repair

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Distal biceps tendon ruptures (DBTR) are uncommon injuries in 40- to 50-year-old men but occur at a younger age in the athlete population. The distal biceps tendon is an important supinator of the forearm and flexor of the elbow. A complete injury results in limiting function in the upper extremity. The current review evaluates the different options in management and the current literature on return to play in athletes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The distal biceps tendon inserts on the posterior aspect of the radial tuberosity as two independent heads. The long head footprint is more proximal and posterior giving it a better lever arm for supination. The short head footprint is more distal and anterior giving it a better lever arm for flexion. Surgical anatomic repair is highly recommended among the athlete population, to restore proper function of the upper extremity. There is scarce literature on return to play among athletes. The most recent studies on high-performance athletes are on National Football League (NFL) players. These studies showed that 84-94% of NFL players returned to play at least one game after distal biceps repair. Compared to matched control groups, there was no difference in the player's performance after surgery. Anatomic repair of DBTR results in excellent outcomes, high return to work, and high rate of return to play among athletes. When compared to matched control groups, NFL players have the performance score and play the same number of games after surgery.

Distal Biceps Tendon Rupture Videos on YouTube: An Analysis of Video Content and Quality

Purpose

Our purpose was to analyze the content and quality of YouTube videos related to distal biceps tendon (DBT) ruptures and repair. We aimed to compare differences between academic and nonacademic video sources.

Methods

The most popular YouTube videos related to DBT injuries were compiled and analyzed according to source. Viewing characteristics were determined for each video. Video content and quality were assessed by 2 reviewers and analyzed according to the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria, DISCERN criteria, and a Distal Biceps Content Score. Cohen’s kappa was used to measure interrater reliability.

Results

A total of 59 DBT YouTube videos were included. The intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from moderate to excellent for the content scores. The mean DISCERN score was 29, and no videos were rated as either “good” or “excellent” for content quality. With the exception of the mean Journal of the American Medical Association criteria score (1.5 vs 0.5), videos from academic sources did not demonstrate significantly higher levels of content quality. Only 4/59 videos (7%) discussed the natural history of nonsurgically treated DBT ruptures. Of the 32 videos that discussed surgical techniques, only 3/32 (9%) had a preference for 2-incision techniques. No videos discussed the association between spontaneous DBT ruptures and cardiac amyloidosis.

Conclusions

The overall content, quality, and reliability of DBT videos on YouTube are poor. Videos from academic sources do not provide higher-quality information than videos from nonacademic sources. Videos related to operative treatment of DBT ruptures more frequently discuss single-incision techniques.

Clinical relevance

Social media videos can function as direct-to-consumer marketing materials, and surgeons should be prepared to address misconceptions regarding the management of DBT tears. Patients are increasingly seeking health information online, and surgeons should direct patients toward more reliable and vetted sources of information.

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.

Return to sport and weightlifting analysis following distal biceps tendon repair

BACKGROUND

Rupture of the distal biceps tendon is an increasingly frequent injury sustained predominantly by middle-aged men. Despite the prevalence of sport in this age group, little is known regarding return to sport outcomes following surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing distal biceps tendon repair (DBR) between January 2015 and January 2017 were contacted electronically via e-mail and via telephone to administer a previously validated and standard return to sport survey. Patients self-reported preinjury and current level of sport and activity as well as preinjury and current level of select weightlifts.

RESULTS

A total of 77 of 124 patients were available for follow-up (62.1%). Of these patients, 61 endorsed preoperative sport and were included for analysis. Average follow-up was 38.7 ± 6.7 months. The mean age at surgery was 47.5 ± 8.8 years, and the mean body mass index was 30.3 ± 5.1. The dominant side was affected in 25 of 61 cases. Of the 61 included patients, 57 (93.4%) were able to return to sport at any level (lower, same, or higher intensity than preinjury activity level). Forty of the patients (65.6%) were able to return to sport at same or higher intensity. Mean time to return to sport was 6.0 ± 2.8 months. Days from injury to surgery (odds ratio [OR] 0.999, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.998-0.999), suture anchor fixation in comparison to suture button (OR 0.602, 95% CI 0.427-0.850), and dominant-side surgery (OR 0.749, 95% CI 0.582-0.963) were associated with a decreased likelihood to return to sport at same or higher level of duty. Single-sided incision in comparison to double (OR 5.209, 95% CI 1.239-20.903) and dominant-side surgery (OR 6.370, 95% CI 1.639-24.762) were associated with increased duration to return to sport.

CONCLUSION

Distal biceps tendon rupture is a significant injury; however, patients can expect high levels of return to sport following DBR with some residual impairment compared with baseline. It is important to counsel patients on their expectations while taking into account the results of this study: that there will be a small but appreciable decrease in strength compared with preinjury levels.

Distal biceps rupture: Evaluation and management

Injury to the distal biceps occurs in certain high risk groups. Anatomical continuity of the lacertus fibrosus has bearing on the extent of retraction of the torn tendon stump. The objective of clinical and imaging evaluation is to discriminate between tendinosis, partial tear, acute complete tear and chronic complete tear. A complete tear of the distal biceps tendon can be diagnosed clinically with the Hook test. The traditional Hook test and the resisted Hook test are useful clinical tests. Though x-rays are routinely done, MRI remains the investigation of choice. Non-operative treatment has a role in selected patients with partial tear or patients with complete tear who have low functional demands. Operative treatment is the recommended treatment for complete tear of the distal biceps and is associated with good functional outcome and patient satisfaction.

Partial Distal Biceps Avulsion Results in a Significant Loss of Supination Force

BACKGROUND

Partial avulsions of the short and/or long head of the distal biceps tendon cause pain and loss of strength. The goal of the present study was to quantify the loss of supination and flexion strength following a series of surgical releases designed to simulate partial and complete short and long head traumatic avulsions.

METHODS

Mechanical testing was performed to measure supination moment arms and flexion force efficiency on 18 adult fresh-frozen specimens in pronation, neutral, and supination. The distal biceps footprint length was divided into 4 equal segments. In 9 specimens (the distal-first group), the tendon was partially cut starting distally by releasing 25%, 50%, and 75% of the insertion site. In the other 9 specimens (the proximal-first group), the releases started proximally. Mechanical testing was performed before and after each release.

RESULTS

Significant decreases in the supination moment arm occurred after a 75% release in the distal-first release group; the decrease was 24% in pronation (p = 0.003) and 10% in neutral (p = 0.043). No significant differences in the supination moment arm (p ≥ 0.079) or in flexion force efficiency (p ≥ 0.058) occurred in the proximal-first group.

CONCLUSIONS

A simulated complete short head avulsion significantly decreased the supination moment arm and therefore supination strength.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A mechanical case can be made for repair of partial distal biceps tendon avulsions when the rupture involves ≥75% of the distal insertion site.

Distal biceps ruptures repair: Experience with 80 cases

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Rupture of distal biceps has a frequency of 1.2 cases per 100,000 population. Conservative treatment presents a loss in supination of 40% and flexion of 30%, like transfers to the brachialis. Our goal is to review our experience with anatomical reattachment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Cohorts study. We analized an historic cohort, although recent, treated with double approach (Boyd-Anderson) compared to another prospective cohort (treated with single and double approach). Sample size of 80 patients. Mean age of 48.9±5.9years. We analyzed laterality, time to diagnosis, presurgery time, surgery time, approach, type of reintegration, rehabilitation time, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), biomechanical study and complications. Follow up from 2 years to 7years.

RESULTS

Time for diagnosis was about 4days. Preoperative time: 12.2±6.4 days. Surgical time: 61.9±15.7minutes. We used the two-way surgical approach (Boyd-Anderson-Morrey) in 78.8% of patients, and the anterior surgical approach (Henry) in 21.2% of cases. Transosseous reinsertion was made in 45% of cases, with screw anchor in 40% and with cortical button in 15%. Rehabilitation time: 91±29.7 days. MEPS: 88±11.7 points. There was loss of flexor strength of 28±16.6%.

COMPLICATIONS

1case of proximal radioulnar synostosis, 2 radial transient paralysis and 5 cases with residual stiffness. Hypothesis contrast: We reached best results in MEPS with double surgical approach (P=.009), with fewer complications (P=.008). We observed increased pain with cortical buttons (P<.05) and less surgical time if patient was operated before 1week (P=.03). Relative risk of 0.2 when we compared type of approach with radial nerve lesion risk, considering that double approach had less cases, what it would be consider as a protective factor.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, we believe that anatomic reattachment is an effective treatment. Double surgical approach presents best result in MEPS, with fewer complications than with anterior approach.

Minimal Damage to the Supinator Muscle After the Double-Incision Technique for Distal Biceps Tendon Repair

Background

The effect of the double-incision technique on the supinator muscle is unclear.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to quantify fatty atrophy of the supinator muscle and map the area of muscle damage.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A total of 19 male patients (median age, 43 years) who underwent distal biceps tendon repair were included in the analysis. Patients with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up were included. The following variables were analyzed: range of motion; shortened version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score; Summary Outcome Determination (SOD) score; and isokinetic peak force and endurance in supination. Quantitative analysis and mapping of fatty infiltration of the supinator muscle were based on the calculation of proton density fat fraction on magnetic resonance imaging scans of both elbows using the IDEAL (Iterative Decomposition of Echoes of Asymmetrical Length) sequence.

Results

At an average follow-up of 24 months (range, 12-64 months), the median SOD score was 9.0 (95% CI, 7.8-9.4), and the mean QuickDASH score was 6.7 (95% CI, 0.0-14.1). A difference of 17% in peak torque was measured between repaired and nonrepaired elbows (repaired elbow: 9.7 N·m; nonrepaired elbow: 11.7 N·m; P = .11). Endurance was better in the repaired elbow than the nonrepaired elbow (8.4% vs 14.9% work fatigue, respectively; P = .02). The average fat fraction of the supinator muscle was 19% (95% CI, 16%-21%) in repaired elbows and 14% (95% CI, 13%-16%) in contralateral elbows (P = .04). The increase in fat fraction was located in a limited area between the radius and ulna at the level of the bicipital tuberosity.

Conclusion

The assessment of the supinator muscle showed a limited increase in fat fraction between the radius and ulna at the level of the bicipital tuberosity. No significant effect on supination strength was highlighted.

Distal Biceps Tendon Repair Using a Modified Double-Incision Technique: Patient-Reported Outcomes With 10-Year Follow-up

Background:

In the setting of complete distal biceps tendon rupture, surgical repair has become the standard of care to restore optimal elbow function, but the optimal approach and method of tendon fixation are still subjects of debate and have remained controversial for more than half a century.

Purpose:

To evaluate patient-reported long-term outcomes after distal biceps tendon repair using a modified double-incision technique.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

We reviewed primary distal biceps tendon repairs after isolated tendon rupture using the modified muscle-splitting double-incision approach and transosseous suture fixation technique described by Morrey et al (1985), which had been performed at our level 1 trauma center between January 2000 and December 2013. Outcome measures included the subjective elbow value (SEV), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES) with its 3 domains (function, pain, and social-psychological), a self-performed hook test, and the 3-level version of the EuroQoL 5-dimensional instrument (EQ-5D-3L) as a measure of health status. Levels of overall satisfaction were determined by asking whether the patient would consent to the operation again. In addition, patients were asked to report any complications.

Results:

A total of 30 patients met the inclusion criteria, and 25 patients were available for the survey. Mean age at the time of rupture was 47 years. All patients were male. Mean follow-up was 120 months (range, 57-207 months). The follow-up rate was 83.34%. The following outcome results were obtained: SEV, 88.16% ± 25.18%; OES, 43.80 ± 10.56 out of 48 points; OES Pain, 92.50% ± 23.03%; OES Function, 92.25% ± 22.19%; OES Social-Psychological, 89% ± 23.68%; EQ-5D-3L, 0.93 ± 0.21. All patients described a negative hook test. Patient-reported complications included painless limitation in forearm rotation in 8% of patients (n = 2); reduced flexion and forearm rotation strength with and without pain in 8% (n = 2) and 4% (n = 1), respectively; synostosis after 1 year requiring revision surgery in 4% (n = 1); and transient wrist drop in 4% (n = 1). The overall complication rate was 28% (7/25), and 96% (n = 24) would consent to the operation again.

Conclusion:

Despite the cited approach-related morbidity, we report an excellent patient-reported long-term outcome for the double-incision distal biceps repair technique.

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.

Anatomic Restoration of the Biceps Brachii Insertion Through a Single Anterior Incision

Treatment of distal biceps tendon ruptures with surgical repair has been shown to restore peak elbow flexion and supination strength, as well as minimize fatigue with repetitive activity. The anatomic footprint of the biceps is slightly posterior to the apical prominence of the bicipital tuberosity. Single-incision and double-incision methods for repairing distal biceps tendon ruptures have been described. However, previously described single-incision techniques have been unable to accurately re-establish the anatomic position of the tendinous insertion. We describe our technique of performing an anatomic distal biceps repair using a single anterior incision. The proposed benefits of this technique include the restoration of the anatomic footprint area, insertion site, and consequently the native cam effect of the bicipital tuberosity all through a single incision. From a patient's perspective, the proposed benefit of this technique includes the restoration of supination strength using a single incision.

Distal Biceps Tendon Repair and Reconstruction

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Brachial distal biceps injuries

Distal biceps injuries are a relatively uncommon clinical condition that typically affect middle-aged males. They commonly occur due to an eccentric overload as the arm is forced from a flexed to extended position. Patients may experience an acute 'pop' and present with arm pain, swelling, and ecchymosis. Treatment options include nonoperative management or surgical repair. The aim of this concise review of distal biceps ruptures is to examine the relevant anatomy, clinical evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment options for these injuries.

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.].

The effect of tendon rotation on distal biceps repair

Background

The distal biceps tendon externally rotates from proximal to distal before inserting onto the radius. Our hypothesis is that an externally rotated (anatomic) repair would re-create native supination moment arm and flexion force, whereas an internally rotated (nonanatomic) repair would result in reduced force transmission.

Methods

The mechanical tests performed in this study measured isometric moment arms and elbow flexion force using a validated elbow simulator as previously published. Mechanical testing was performed on 8 native cadaveric elbows (61 ± 15 years). The distal biceps tendons in all specimens were then incised from their footprint and repaired with anatomic and nonanatomic tendon rotations. After each repair, the specimens were retested. The repair sequence was randomly assigned.

Results

Gross observation showed repair site bunching with the nonanatomic repairs. There was no statistical difference in the moment arms between the native, anatomic, and nonanatomic rotations for the 3 forearm angles (P ≥ .352). Analysis showed no statistical difference in flexion force ratio for the elbow at 90° (P ≥ .283).

Discussion

The study showed that biceps tendon rotation does not play a role in supination moment arm or flexion force. Twisting the distal biceps tendon around the tendon axis does not change the direction of its applied force on the tuberosity. Tendon bunching in nonanatomic reattachments increases repair site width, which may lead to tendon-ulnar impingement during forearm rotation.

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.

Clinical and functional impairment after nonoperative treatment of distal biceps ruptures

BACKGROUND

Clinical and functional impairment after nonoperative treatment of distal biceps ruptures is not well understood. The goal of this study was to measure patients' perceived disability, kinematic adjustment, and forearm supination power after nonoperative treatment of distal biceps ruptures.

METHODS

Fourteen individuals after nonoperative treatment of distal biceps ruptures were matched to a control group of 18 uninjured volunteers. Both groups prospectively completed the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), and Biceps Disability Questionnaire. Both performed a new timed isotonic supination test that was designed to simulate activities of daily life. The isotonic torque dynamometer measures the supination arc, center of supination arc, torque, angular velocity, and power. Motion analysis quantifies forearm and shoulder contributions to the arc of supination.

RESULTS

The nonoperative treated group's DASH (23.2 ± 10.3) and SANE (59.6 ± 16.2) scores demonstrated a clinical meaningful impairment. The control group showed no significant differences in kinematic values between dominant and nondominant arms (P = .854). The nonoperative biceps ruptured arms, compared with their uninjured arms, changed supination motion by decreasing the supination arc (P ≤ .036), shifting the center of supination arc to a more pronated position (P ≤ .030), and increasing the shoulder contribution to rotation (P ≤ .001); despite this adaptation, their average corrected power of supination decreased by 47% (P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients should understand that nonoperative treatment for distal biceps ruptures will result in varying degrees of functional loss as measured by the DASH, SANE, and Biceps Disability Questionnaire, change their supination kinematics during repetitive tasks, and that they will lose 47% of their supination power.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Single-Incision Anatomic Repair Technique for Distal Biceps Tendon Rupture Using Tunneling Device

Distal biceps tendon ruptures are uncommon and generally occur in men aged 30 to 50 years in their dominant arm as a result of a strong eccentric load. Numerous surgical exposures and methods of fixation exist for repair of a ruptured distal biceps tendon. The goal of surgical management is to restore the anatomic footprint of the biceps tendon on the radial tuberosity to maximize flexion strength, supination strength, and muscle endurance. When compared with 2-incision repair techniques, single-incision repairs historically may not have restored the anatomic footprint of the distal biceps. Single-incision repair with the ArthroTunneler is a safe and effective technique that provides the anatomic restoration of a 2-incision approach with the decreased complication profile of a single-incision approach and does not require suture anchors, buttons, screws, or other implants.

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.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Factors That Determine Supination Strength Following Distal Biceps Repair

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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.

Distal Biceps Injuries

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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