scholarly journals Distal biceps brachii tendon rupture

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Knipe
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 232596712199181
Author(s):  
Mehmet Kapicioglu ◽  
Emre Bilgin ◽  
Necip Guven ◽  
Anil Pulatkan ◽  
Kerem Bilsel

Background: The classic injury mechanism of a distal biceps brachii tendon rupture (DBBTR) is eccentric loading to the flexed elbow when the forearm is supinated. Purpose: To determine alternative mechanisms of a DBBTR in powerlifting sports, particularly in deadlift competitions, with the use of YouTube videos. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: A search on YouTube was performed using the search terms “distal biceps tendon rupture” and “distal biceps tendon injury” combined with “competition,” “deadlift,” and “powerlifting.” The videos underwent an evaluation for accuracy by 3 surgeons according to predetermined criteria. Type of sports activity, participant sex, side of the injury, and arm positions at the time of the injury were recorded. Results: Among the videos reviewed, 35 injuries were found appropriate for an evaluation. All participants were male. The majority of the injuries (n = 25) were observed during the deadlift. Only in 1 deadlift injury were both forearms in supination. In the remaining deadlift injuries (n = 24), all elbows were in extension, with 1 forearm in supination and the other in pronation. Among the deadlift injuries in the mixed-grip position, all ruptures occurred in a supinated extremity: 25% (n = 6) of ruptures occurred on the right side, and 75% (n = 18) of ruptures occurred on the left side; this was a significant difference ( P = .014). Conclusion: We described an alternative mechanism for a DBBTR, namely, eccentric loading to an extended elbow when the forearm is supinated during the deadlift. As all the ruptures occurred in a supinated extremity, holding the bar with both forearms in pronation may prevent or decrease the risk of ruptures during the deadlift.


Orthopedics ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (11) ◽  
pp. e1479-e1481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis C. Grandizio ◽  
Michael Suk ◽  
Glen T. Feltham

Orthopedics ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 147-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selahattin Ozyurek ◽  
Ozkan Kose ◽  
Louis C. Grandizio ◽  
Michael Suk ◽  
Glen T. Feltham

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolina Ejnisman ◽  
Paulo Santoro Belangero ◽  
Carlos Vicente Andreoli ◽  
Alberto de Castro Pochini ◽  
Moises Cohen ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-301
Author(s):  
A.E. Medvedchikov ◽  
◽  
V.Yu. Zhilenko ◽  
P.G. Sveshnikov ◽  
E.V. Burov ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Manuel Weißenberger ◽  
Alexander Klug ◽  
Tizian Heinz ◽  
Kilian Rueckl ◽  
Hans Kollenda ◽  
...  

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


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document