Acute distal biceps tendon rupture: retrospective analysis of two different approaches and fixation techniques

Purpose The aim of our study is to compare the modified double incision (DI) with bone tunnel reinsertion with the single-incision (SI) double tension slide technique in terms of clinical and functional outcomes and complication rates. Methods A retrospective comparative analysis was performed on 65 patients treated for total distal biceps tendon rupture. The surgical technique adopted for each patient was based on the preference of two experienced elbow surgeons. The DASH and MAYO questionnaires, functional outcome and ROM were recorded in all subjects. Results Of 65 patients, we collected data of a cohort of 54 distal biceps tendon ruptures that satisfied inclusion criteria. Twenty-five were treated by modified DI and 29 SI techniques. The recovery of the complete ROM in terms of flexion/extension and prono-supination occurred in the 79.6% of the patients, without statistical significant difference between the adopted technique. We reported a complication rate of 12% and 20.7% for DI and SI techniques, respectively, without statistical correlation (P = 0.84). The average DASH score was similar for DI and SI techniques without significant differences (P = 0,848). The Mayo score results were excellent in the majority of the patients. No significant difference in MAYO results was reported comparing the surgical techniques (P = 1). Conclusion Both techniques provide a reliable and strong repair with an optimal recovery of ROM returning to preinjury activity with substantially overlapping timelines.

Greater radial tuberosity size is associated with distal biceps tendon rupture: a quantitative 3-D CT case–control study

Purpose During pronation, the distal biceps tendon and radial tuberosity internally rotate into the radioulnar space, reducing the linear distance between the radius and ulna by approximately 50%. This leaves a small space for the distal biceps tendon to move in and could possibly cause mechanical impingement or rubbing of the distal biceps tendon. Hypertrophy of the radial tuberosity potentially increases the risk of mechanical impingement of the distal biceps tendon. The purpose of our study was to determine if radial tuberosity size is associated with rupturing of the distal biceps tendon. Methods Nine patients with a distal biceps tendon rupture who underwent CT were matched 1:2 to controls without distal biceps pathology. A quantitative 3-dimensional CT technique was used to calculate the following radial tuberosity characteristics: 1) volume in mm3, 2) surface area in mm2, 3) maximum height in mm and 4) location (distance in mm from the articular surface of the radial head). Results Analysis of the 3-dimensional radial tuberosity CT-models showed larger radial tuberosity volume and maximum height in the distal biceps tendon rupture group compared to the control group. Mean radial tuberosity volume in the rupture-group was 705 mm3 (SD: 222 mm3) compared to 541 mm3 (SD: 184 mm3) in the control group (p = 0.033). Mean radial tuberosity maximum height in the rupture-group was 4.6 mm (SD: 0.9 mm) compared to 3.7 mm (SD: 1.1 mm) in the control group, respectively (p = 0.011). There was no statistically significant difference in radial tuberosity surface area (ns) and radial tuberosity location (ns). Conclusion Radial tuberosity volume and maximum height were significantly greater in patients with distal biceps tendon ruptures compared to matched controls without distal biceps tendon pathology. This supports the theory that hypertrophy of the radial tuberosity plays a role in developing distal biceps tendon pathology. Level of evidence Level III.

BET 1: Best Evidence Topic Report: is the hook test sensitive enough to be used to exclude distal biceps tendon rupture?

A shortcut review was carried out to see whether the hook test is sensitive enough for a negative result to exclude complete distal biceps tendon rupture (DBTR) in adults. 3 papers presented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of these papers are tabulated. It is concluded that the hook test is moderately sensitive at detecting complete DBTR when carried out by skilled clinicians in specialist upper limb clinics. As a single test, it is not sensitive enough to be used to exclude complete DBTR.

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.