Acute Distal Biceps Tendon Injury: Diagnosis and Treatment

Acute distal biceps injuries clinically present with sudden pain and acute loss of flexion and supination strength. The main injury mechanism occurs during the eccentric load of the biceps. The hook test is the most significant examination test, presenting the highest sensibility and specificity for this lesion. Magnetic resonance imaging, the gold standard imaging test, can provide information regarding integrity and identify partial and/or complete tears. The surgical treatment uses an anterior or double approach and several reattachment techniques. Although there is no clinical evidence to recommend one fixation method over the other, biomechanical studies show that the cortical button resists better to failure. Although surgical treatment led to an 89% rate of return to work in 14 weeks, the recovery of high sports performance occurred in 1 year, with unsustainable outcomes.

Interventions for treating acute elbow dislocations in adults

BACKGROUND

Dislocation of the elbow joint is a relatively uncommon injury.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of various forms of treatment for acute simple elbow dislocations in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (April 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2011 Issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to March Week 5 2011), EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 14), PEDro (April 2011), CINAHL (April 2011), various trial registers, various conference proceedings and bibliographies of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of conservative and surgical treatment of dislocations of the elbow in adults. Excluded were trials involving dislocations with associated fractures, except for avulsion fractures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were independently performed by two review authors. There was no pooling of data.

MAIN RESULTS

Two small randomised controlled trials, involving a total of 80 participants with simple elbow dislocations, were included. Both trials were methodologically flawed and potentially biased.One trial, involving 50 participants, compared early mobilisation at three days post reduction versus cast immobilisation. At one year follow-up, the recovery of range of motion appeared better in the early mobilisation group (e.g. participants with incomplete recovery of extension: 1/24 versus 5/26; risk ratio 0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.72). However, the results were not statistically significant. There were no reports of instability or recurrence. One person in each group had residual pain at one year.The other trial, involving 30 participants, compared surgical repair of the torn ligaments versus conservative treatment (cast immobilisation for two weeks). At final follow-up (mean 27.5 months), there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the numbers of patients who considered their injured elbow to be inferior to their non-injured elbow (10/14 versus 7/14; RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.66) or in other patient complaints about their elbow such as weakness, pain or weather-related discomfort. There were no reports of instability or recurrence. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in range of motion of the elbow (extension, flexion, pronation, and supination) or grip strength at follow-up. No participants had neurological disturbances of the hand but two surgical group participants had recurrent dislocation of the ulnar nerve (no other details provided). One person in each group had radiologically detected myositis ossificans (bone formation within muscles following injury).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to determine which method of treatment is the most appropriate for simple dislocations of the elbow in adults. Although weak and inconclusive, the available evidence from a trial comparing surgery versus conservative treatment does not suggest that the surgical repair of elbow ligaments for simple elbow dislocation improves long-term function. Future research should focus on questions relating to non-surgical treatment, such as the duration of immobilisation.

Manipulative interventions for reducing pulled elbow in young children

BACKGROUND

Pulled elbow (nursemaid's elbow) is a common injury in young children. It results from a sudden pull on the arm, usually by an adult or taller person, which pulls the radius through the annular ligament, resulting in subluxation (partial dislocation) of the radial head. The child experiences sudden acute pain and loss of function in the affected arm. Pulled elbow is usually treated by manual reduction of the subluxed radial head. Various manoeuvres can be applied. Most textbooks recommend supination of the forearm, as opposed to pronation and other approaches. It is unclear which manoeuvre is most successful. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effectiveness and painfulness of the different methods used to manipulate pulled elbow in young children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PEDro, clinical trial registers and reference lists of articles. Date of last search: July 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating manipulative interventions for pulled elbow were included. Our primary outcome was failure at the first attempt, necessitating further treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated trials for inclusion and, for the included trials, independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

One trial with 66 children was newly included in this update. Overall, four trials with 379 children, all younger than seven years old, were included. All four trials compared pronation versus supination. One trial was at high risk of selection bias because allocation was not concealed and all four trials were at high risk of detection bias due to the lack of assessor blinding. Pronation resulted in statistically significantly less failure than supination (21/177 versus 47/181, risk ratio 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.73). Pain perception was reported by two trials but data were unavailable for pooling. Both studies concluded that the pronation technique was less painful than the supination technique.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence from four small low-quality trials that the pronation method might be more effective and less painful than the supination method for manipulating pulled elbow in young children. We recommend that a high quality randomised trial be performed to strengthen the evidence.