RESUMEN

Background There are a number of different techniques available for the repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures. Recent evidence has revealed satisfactory clinical outcomes for suture button techniques. Aims The aim of this study was to determine if the ToggleLocTM soft tissue fixation device (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana) confers satisfactory clinical outcomes in the surgical management of distal biceps ruptures. Methods Twelve consecutive patients underwent distal biceps repair using the ToggleLocTM soft tissue fixation device over a two-year period. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were collected by means of validated questionnaires on two occasions. Symptoms and function were quantified using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and the Oxford Elbow Score (OES). Patient-reported health scores were determined using the EQ-5D-3L (European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level Version) questionnaire. Results The mean initial follow-up time was 10.4 months and the mean final follow-up time was 34.6 months. The mean DASH score at the initial follow-up was 5.9 (se = 3.6), compared to 2.9 (se = 1.0) at the final follow-up (p = 0.30). The mean OES at the initial follow-up was 91.5 (se = 4.1); and 91.5 (se = 5.2) at the final follow-up (p = 0.23). The mean EQ-5D-3L level sum score at the initial follow-up was 5.3 (se = 0.3); and 5.8 (se = 0.5) at the final follow-up (p = 0.34). Discussion The ToggleLocTM soft tissue fixation device confers satisfactory clinical outcomes, as determined by PROMS, in the surgical management of distal biceps ruptures.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) is the most commonly injured motor nerve during distal biceps tendon repair resulting in severe functional deficits. Anatomic studies of distal biceps tendon repairs have evaluated the proximity of the PIN to the anterior radial shaft in supination, but limited studies have evaluated the location of the PIN in relation to the radial tuberosity (RT), and none have examined its relation to the subcutaneous border of the ulna (SBU) with varying forearm rotation. This study evaluates the location of the PIN in relation to the RT and SBU to help guide surgeons in safe placement of the dorsal incision and the safest zones of dissection. METHODS: The PIN was dissected from arcade of Frohse to 2 cm distal to the RT in 18 cadaver specimens. Four lines were drawn perpendicular to the radial shaft at the proximal, middle, and distal aspect of and 1 cm distal to the RT in the lateral view. Measurements were recorded with a digital caliper along these lines to quantify the distance between the SBU and RT to the PIN with the forearm in neutral, supination, and pronation with the elbow at 90° flexion. Measurements were also made along the length of the radius at the volar, middle, and dorsal surfaces at the distal aspect of the RT to assess its proximity to the PIN. RESULTS: Mean distances to the PIN were greater in pronation than supination and neutral. The PIN crossed the volar surface of the distal aspect of the RT -6.9 ± 4.3 mm (-13, -3.0) in supination, -0.4 ± 5.8 mm (-9.9, 2.5) in neutral, and 8.5 ± 9.9 mm (-2.7, 13) in pronation. One centimeter distal to the RT, mean distance to the PIN was 0.54 ± 4.3 mm (-4.5, 8.8) in supination, 8.5 ± 3.1 mm (3.2, 14) in neutral, and 10 ± 2.7 mm (4.9, 16) in pronation. In pronation, mean distances from the SBU to the PIN at points A, B, C, and D were 41.3 ± 4.2, 38.1 ± 4.4, 34.9 ± 4.2, and 30.8 ± 3.9 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: PIN location is quite variable, and to avoid iatrogenic injury during 2-incision distal biceps tendon repair, we recommend placement of the dorsal incision no more than 25 mm anterior to the SBU and carrying out deep dissection proximally first to identify the RT before continuing the dissection distally to expose the tendon footprint. The PIN was at risk of injury along the volar surface at the distal aspect of the RT in 50% with neutral rotation and 17% with full pronation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Various distal biceps tendon repair techniques exist, each with their own biomechanical profile. Recently, all-suture anchor fixation has recently become an intriguing option for distal biceps fixation, compared with the proven track record of the suspensory cortical button. In addition, intramedullary techniques have been utilized as a means to avoid complications such as nerve damage seen with extramedullary fixation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to perform a comparative biomechanical analysis of 4 unique distal biceps tendon fixation methods: Unicortical/intramedullary all-suture anchor fixation (UIAS), Bicortical/extramedullary all-suture anchor fixation (BEAS), Unicortical/intramedullary suspensory button fixation (UISB), and Bicortical/extramedullary suspensory button fixation (BESB). STUDY DESIGN: Controlled Laboratory study. METHODS: 24 fresh-frozen cadaveric elbows were randomized into 4 groups providing data from 6 specimens, with each group undergoing a different repair technique. The specimens underwent 2 studies: Cyclic loading and Ultimate Load to failure (ULTF) testing. The repaired elbows were cycled 3000 times between 0 and 90 degrees of flexion, with displacement under cyclic loading at the repair site measured using a differential variable reductance transducer. ULTF test was performed with the elbow flexed at 90 degrees. The modes of failure were recorded. RESULTS: The mean cyclic displacements between the 4 groups were as follows: UIAS: 1.45 ± 1.04 mm; BEAS: 2.75 ± 1.32 mm; UISB: 1.45 ± .776 mm; BESB: 2.66 ± 1.18 mm (p= 0.077). Bicortical repairs displayed greater displacement after cyclic loading when compared with unicortical repairs regardless of anchor used (p= 0.007). The mean ULTF for each group was as follows: all-suture intramedullary: 200 N; all-suture extramedullary: 330 N; cortical-button intramedullary: 256 N; cortical-button extramedullary: 342 N). All-suture unicortical/intramedullary repair had a significantly lower ULTF (200 N) compared with cortical-button Bicortical/extramedullary repair (342 N) (p=0.043). CONCLUSION: Bicortical/extramedullary suspensory button fixation demonstrated a greater ultimate load to failure when compared with unicortical/intramedullary all-suture anchor fixation. These findings suggest that bicortical/extramedullary suspensory cortical button fixation is a biomechanically superior construct as compared to unicortical/intramedullary all-suture anchor fixation. However, there was no significant difference in ULTF between extra-medullary, Bicortical button or Bicortical, all-suture anchor fixation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Rerupture after cortical button fixation and whipstitch suture technique is a rare complication of distal biceps tendon repair. The tendon-bone fixation construct can fail for various reasons, including cortical breach, pull out or disengagement of a cortical button, suture breakage, or knot slippage. Occasionally, a cut-through of the tendon substance by the high-tensile strength suture material, called the 'cheese-wire' effect, can happen, especially with premature loading during the early postoperative period. The clinical presentation is more subtle, and the rerupture may go unnoticed. A high index of suspicion and a low threshold for ordering a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan are necessary for a prompt diagnosis and early treatment. We describe the management of a reruptured distal biceps in an active male that happened in the early postoperative period, along with a critical analysis of the failure pattern and potential preventive measures.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Distal biceps rupture is a relatively uncommon injury that can significantly affect quality of life. Early complications following biceps tendon repair are not well described in the literature. This study utilizes a national surgical database to determine the incidence of and predictors for short-term complications following distal biceps tendon repair. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify patients undergoing distal biceps repair between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. Patient demographic variables of sex, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, functional status, and several comorbidities were collected for each patient, along with 30-day postoperative complications. Binary logistic regression was used to calculate risk ratios for these complications using patient predictor variables. RESULTS: Early postoperative surgical complications (0.5%)-which were mostly infections (0.4%)-and medical complications (0.3%) were rare. A readmission risk factor was diabetes (risk ratio [RR], 4.238; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.180-15.218). Non-home discharge risk factors were smoking (RR, 3.006; 95% CI, 1.123-8.044) and ≥60 years of age (RR, 4.150; 95% CI, 1.611- 10.686). Maleness was protective for medical complications (RR, 0.024; 95% CI, 0.005-0.126). Surgical complication risk factors were obese class II (RR, 4.120; 95% CI, 1.123-15.120), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; RR, 21.981; 95% CI, 3.719-129.924), and inpatient surgery (RR, 8.606; 95% CI, 2.266-32.689). CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates after distal biceps repair are low. Various patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and surgical factors were all predictive of short-term complications.

RESUMEN

Background A comparative biomechanical analysis of two distal biceps tendon repair techniques was performed: a single suture tension slide technique (TST) and two suture double tension slide (DTS) technique. Methodology Ten matched pairs of fresh frozen human cadaveric elbows (20 elbows) were randomly separated into two cohorts for distal biceps tendon repair. One cohort underwent the TST, and the other underwent the DTS technique. The tendon was preconditioned with cyclic loading from 0° to 90° at 0.5 Hz for 3,600 cycles with a 50 N load. The specimens were then loaded to failure at a rate of 1 mm/s. The difference in the load to failure between the groups was analyzed using the Student's t test. The mode of failure was compared between groups using the chi-square test. All p-values were reported with significance set at p < 0.05. Results Overall, 77.8% of the included matched pairs demonstrated greater load to failure in the DTS group. The mean load to failure in the DTS group was 383.3 ± 149.3 N compared to 275.8 ± 98.1 N in the TST group (p = 0.13). The DTS specimens failed at the tendon (5/9), suture (3/9), and bone (1/9). The TST specimens failed at the tendon (4/9) and suture (5/9) only. There was no significant difference in failure type between groups (p = 0.76). Conclusions DTS demonstrates a similar to greater load to failure compared to TST with a trend towards statistical significance. The redundancy provided by the second suture has an inherent advantage without compromising the biomechanical testing.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Various surgical techniques can be used to repair acute distal biceps tendon (DBT) tears; however, it is unknown which type of repair or implant has the greatest biomechanical strength and presents the lowest risk of type 2 failure. PURPOSE: To identify associations between the type of implant or construct used and the biomechanical performance of DBT repairs in a review of human cadaveric studies. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-regression. METHODS: We systematically searched the EMBASE and Medline (PubMed) databases for biomechanical studies that evaluated DBT repair performance in cadaveric specimens. Two independent reviewers extracted data from 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The pooled data set was subjected to meta-regression with adjusted failure load (AFL) as the primary outcome variable. Procedural parameters, such as number of sutures, cortices, locking stitches, and whipstitches, served as covariates. Adjusted analysis was performed to determine the differences among implant types. The alpha level was set at .05. RESULTS: When using no implant (bone tunnels) as the referent, no fixation type or procedural parameter was significantly better at predicting AFL. Cortical button fixation had the highest AFL (370 N; 95% CI, -2 to 221). In an implant-to-implant comparison, suture anchor alone was significantly weaker than cortical button (154 N; 95% CI, 30 to 279). Constructs using a cortical button and interference screw were not stronger (as measured by AFL) than those using a cortical button alone. The presence of a locking stitch added 113 N (95% CI, 29 to 196) to the AFL. The use of cortical button instead of interference screws or bone tunnels was associated with lower odds of type 2 failure. Avoiding locking stitches and using more sutures in the construct were also associated with lower odds of type 2 failure. CONCLUSION: Cortical button fixation is associated with greater construct strength than is suture anchor repair and a lower risk of type 2 failure compared with interference screw fixation or fixation without implants. The addition of an interference screw to cortical button fixation was not associated with increased strength. The presence of a locking stitch added 113 N to the failure load but also increased the odds of type 2 failure.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Purpose: Many approaches have been described to accomplish tendon reattachment to the radial tuberosity in a distal biceps tendon rupture, with significant success, but each is associated with potential postoperative complications, including posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) injury. To date, there has been no consensus on the best approach to the repair. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the supination strength and the distance of drill exit points from the PIN in a power-optimizing distal biceps repair method and compare the findings with those of a traditional anterior approach endobutton repair method. Methods: Cadaveric arms were dissected to allow for distal biceps tendon excision from its anatomic footprint. Each arm was repaired twice, first with the power-optimizing repair using an anterior single-incision approach with an ulnar drilling angle and biceps tendon radial tuberosity wraparound anatomic footprint attachment, then with the traditional anterior endobutton repair. Following each repair, the arm was mounted on a custom-built testing apparatus, and the supination torque was measured from 3 orientations. The PIN was then located posteriorly, and its distance from each repair exit hole was measured. Results: Five cadaveric arms, each with both the repairs, were included in the study. On average, the power-optimizing repair generated an 82%, 22%, and 13% greater supination torque than the traditional anterior endobutton repair in 45° supination, neutral, and 45° pronation orientations, respectively. On average, the power-optimizing repair produced drill hole exit points farther from the PIN (23 mm) than the traditional anterior endobutton repair (14 mm). Conclusions: The power-optimizing repair provides a significantly greater supination torque and produces a drill hole exit point significantly farther from the PIN than the traditional anterior endobutton approach. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic III.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Given the similar outcomes of various fixation constructs for single-incision distal biceps repair, a critical evaluation of the factors that drive the cost of the procedure is the key to optimizing treatment value. The purpose of this study was to quantify variation in costs for surgical treatment of complete distal biceps ruptures, as well as identify factors affecting costs. METHODS: We retrospectively identified adult patients consecutively treated surgically for complete distal biceps ruptures between July 2011 and January 2018 at a single academic medical center. Using our institution's information technology value tool, we recorded the surgical encounter total direct costs (SETDCs) for each patient. Univariate and multivariate gamma regression models were used to determine factors affecting SETDCs. RESULTS: Of 121 included patients, 102 (86%), 7 (6%), and 12 (10%) underwent primary repair, revision, and reconstruction. SETDCs varied widely, with a standard deviation of 40% and a range of 58% to 276% of the average SETDC. The main contributors to SETDCs were facility utilization costs (53%) and implant costs (29%). Implant costs also varied, with a standard deviation of 16%, ranging up to 121% of the mean SETDC. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that reconstructions were 72% more costly than primary repairs (P < .001). No significant cost differences were found between cortical button and dual-suture anchor fixation (P = .058). American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index, revision surgery, time to surgery, location, administration of postoperative block, and surgeon performing the procedure did not significantly affect the SETDC. CONCLUSION: Surgical encounter and implant costs vary widely for distal biceps rupture treatment. However, no significant difference in SETDC was identified between repair with a cortical button vs. dual-suture anchor repair. The greater costs associated with reconstruction surgery should be taken into consideration.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Surgical reattachment of the tendon is still the gold standard for ruptures of the distal biceps brachii tendon. Several fixation techniques have been described in the literature, with suture anchors being one of the most common fixation techniques. Currently, there is no data available on how many anchors are required for a safe and stable refixation. In this case report clinical data of a patient with non-simultaneous bilateral distal biceps tendon ruptures treated with a different number of suture anchors for each side (one vs. two) are demonstrated. CASE PRESENTATION: A 47-year-old factory worker suffered a rupture of the distal biceps tendon on both arms following two different occasions. The left side was fixed using a single suture anchor, while refixation on the right side was performed with two anchors. The patient was prospectively followed for one year. Functional outcome was assessed using the Andrews Carson Score (ACS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score after six, twelve, 24 and 48 weeks. Furthermore, an isokinetic strength measurement for flexion strength was performed after 24 and 48 weeks. After 48 weeks the patient presented with excellent functional outcome scores and no follow-up complications. During the follow-up period, no differences in the functional scores nor in the isokinetic flexion strength measurement could be detected. Furthermore, no radiological complications (like heterotopic ossifications) could be detected in the postoperative radiographs after one year. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomic reattachment of the distal biceps tendon is a successful operative treatment option for distal biceps tendon ruptures. Suture anchor fixation remains one of the most common techniques, as it allows fast surgery and provides good results with respect to range of motion (ROM) and functional scoring according to the current literature. However, the number of anchors required for a stable fixation remains unclear. As indicated by our presented case, we hypothesize, that there are no significant differences between a one-point or a two-point fixation. In the presented case report, no intraindividual differences between the usage of one versus two suture anchors were evident in the short-term follow-up.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction, distal biceps tendon repair, and elbow arthroscopic surgery are common elbow procedures performed in active patients. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized (1) good to excellent correlation between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments and traditional orthopaedic upper extremity patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures; (2) that PROMIS instruments would demonstrate ceiling effects; and (3) that the PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test (PF CAT) would demonstrate a low question burden compared with other PRO instruments. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: A total of 76 patients undergoing UCL repair/reconstruction, distal biceps tendon repair, or elbow arthroscopic surgery filled out the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Function subscale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire, PROMIS PF CAT, and PROMIS upper extremity item bank (UE). Excellent correlation between PROs was defined as ≥.70. RESULTS: The PROMIS PF CAT had excellent correlation with the SF-36 (r = 0.74; P < .0001), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) survey (r = -0.76; P < .0001), and PROMIS UE (r = 0.73; P < .0001). The PROMIS UE demonstrated excellent correlation with the SF-36 (r = 0.73; P < .0001) and DASH survey (r = -0.81; P < .0001). The PROMIS UE had ceiling effects in 33% of patients. The SF-36 showed ceiling effects in 20% of patients. On average, patients answered 5.1 ± 2.2 questions on the PROMIS PF CAT. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS PF CAT and PROMIS UE are valid in patients undergoing distal biceps tendon repair, elbow arthroscopic surgery, and UCL repair. The PROMIS UE demonstrated high ceiling effects in younger, higher functioning patients and should be used with caution in this group. A further evaluation and modification of the PROMIS UE in younger, high-functioning patients are warranted. Finally, the PROMIS PF CAT exhibited a low question burden relative to traditional PRO instruments without the loss of reliability.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the incidence of symptomatic radioulnar synostosis/heterotopic ossification after distal biceps tendon repair in patients receiving indomethacin prophylaxis. We hypothesized that indomethacin use postoperatively would decrease the occurrence of symptomatic synostosis. METHODS: A single-center retrospective record review identified 124 patients undergoing distal biceps repair between 2011 and 2014. Patients were analyzed for administration of indomethacin, contraindications to administration, age, time to surgery, fixation method, medical comorbidities, and development of symptomatic synostosis. Oral indomethacin (75 mg, once daily) was prescribed postoperatively for 10 to 42 days per each attendings' protocol. RESULTS: After analysis, 112 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 7 undergoing a 1-incision distal biceps repair and 105 undergoing a 2-incision repair. Of those, 104 received indomethacin postoperatively, with a synostosis rate of 0.96% compared with 37.50% for the untreated group (P < .001). No statistically significant difference was found between fixation methods and synostosis. One patient with synostosis was a single-incision repair, and 3 were 2-incision suture bridge repairs. Three patients with synostosis had relative contraindications to administration of indomethacin, including concomitant warfarin use, clopidogrel use, and ulcerative colitis. CONCLUSION: Indomethacin use after distal biceps repair was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rate of symptomatic radioulnar synostosis and did not have any associated adverse effects, including gastrointestinal bleeding or rerupture, despite prolonged use of up to 6 weeks. This study represents the largest study to report the outcomes of patients undergoing distal biceps repair with concomitant synostosis prophylaxis using indomethacin.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Distal biceps tendon ruptures may have tendinous retraction, making primary repair difficult and calling into question the need for graft reconstruction. The decision for when to primarily fix or augment high-flexion repairs has not been addressed. We hypothesized high-flexion repairs would have good outcomes without graft augmentation. The purpose of this study was to examine allograft use and outcomes of distal biceps tendon ruptures requiring repair in greater than 60° of flexion. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study 188 distal biceps tendon repairs; of these, 19 chronic and 4 acute cases were identified with repairs of >60° of flexion using a 2-incision technique. Graft need, complications, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score to assess function, were examined with a record review. Patients were surveyed regarding return to work and subjective satisfaction. A control group matched for surgeon, chronicity, and age, but without a high-flexion repair, was compared with cases by using the Student paired t test. RESULTS: Graft augmentation was used in 1 patient with poor tendon quality. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 100 for all 23 patients, with extension/flexion range of motion from 3° to 138°. All were subjectively "very satisfied/satisfied," with full work return, yet 3 reported mild fatigability. There were 4 complications: 3 transient lateral antebrachial cutaneous neurapraxias and 1 rerupture at the myotendinous junction after retrauma. Differences between cases and controls were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Contracted distal biceps tendons may be reliably reattached to their anatomic insertion with up to 90° of elbow flexion. This lessens the need for reconstruction in such circumstances.

Asunto(s)