Management of Anterior Tibialis Tendon Ruptures

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Chen ◽  
Rishin Kadakia ◽  
Craig Chike Akoh ◽  
Karl Martin Schweitzer
1998 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 792-802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greory G. Markarian ◽  
Armen S. Kelikian ◽  
Michael Brage ◽  
Timothy Trainor ◽  
Luciano Dias

1997 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fourth Edition, uses the Injury Model to rate impairment in people who have experienced back injuries. Injured individuals who have not required surgery can be rated using differentiators. Challenges arise when assessing patients whose injuries have been treated surgically before the patient is rated for impairment. This article discusses five of the most common situations: 1) What is the impairment rating for an individual who has had an injury resulting in sciatica and who has been treated surgically, either with chemonucleolysis or with discectomy? 2) What is the impairment rating for an individual who has a back strain and is operated on without reasonable indications? 3) What is the impairment rating of an individual with sciatica and a foot drop (major anterior tibialis weakness) from L5 root damage? 4) What is the rating for an individual who is injured, has true radiculopathy, undergoes a discectomy, and is rated as Category III but later has another injury and, ultimately, a second disc operation? 5) What is the impairment rating for an older individual who was asymptomatic until a minor strain-type injury but subsequently has neurogenic claudication with severe surgical spinal stenosis on MRI/myelography? [Continued in the September/October 1997 The Guides Newsletter]


1992 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 741-758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie J. Landvater ◽  
Per A.F.H. Renström

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-277
Author(s):  
James M. Cottom ◽  
Charles A. Sisovsky

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 232596711982731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham D. Pallante ◽  
Shawn W. O’Driscoll

Background: The hook test is a sensitive and specific tool that has been previously described for diagnosing distal biceps tendon ruptures in an efficient, cost-effective manner. However, its application in postoperative evaluations after surgical repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures is not documented. Hypothesis/Purpose: We hypothesized that the hook test result returns to normal at some point postoperatively after distal biceps repair. This information could be used in decision making during follow-up examinations with both normal and abnormal findings. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed records of distal biceps repair. Between July 1, 2003, and July 1, 2016, a total of 56 patients underwent distal biceps repair and also had clear documentation of the results of the hook test during the postoperative period. Hook test results consisted of “intact,” “abnormal,” or “absent.” The timing of the return to a normal hook test result was recorded. Results: Overall, 51 of 57 (89%) repairs were documented to have the hook test result return to “intact.” The test result returned to intact by a mean of 10 weeks after surgery (range, 2 weeks to 15 months). The biceps tendon was intact according to the hook test at the 4-month follow-up in 45 of the 51 patients (88%) in whom it ultimately returned. The hook test result was abnormal in 5 repairs in 5 patients with only a short-term follow-up, ranging from 2 to 7 weeks postoperatively. One patient with an abnormal hook test result at 2 weeks postoperatively underwent revision and was confirmed to have a partial tear of the biceps insertion. His hook test result returned to intact 3 months after revision repair. Conclusion: The hook test result returns to normal in patients who undergo distal biceps repair in the primary and revision settings with adequate follow-up. The vast majority of patients have a normal hook test result by 4 months postoperatively. An abnormal hook test result at 4 months postoperatively may indicate a failed repair and should prompt further investigation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 735-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher E. Gross ◽  
James A. Nunley

2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (8) ◽  
pp. 803-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Geun Jung ◽  
Keun Bae Lee ◽  
Sang Gwon Cho ◽  
Taek Rim Yoon

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document