Single Versus Double-Incision Technique for the Repair of Acute Distal Biceps Tendon Ruptures A Randomized Clinical Trial

Hand and Upper Limb Center, St. Joseph's Health Care, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Western Ontario, 268 Grosvenor Street, London, ON N6A 4L6, Canada.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Impact Factor: 4.31). 07/2012; 94(13):1166-74. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00436
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This clinical trial was done to evaluate outcomes of the single and double-incision techniques for acute distal biceps tendon repair. We hypothesized that there would be fewer complications and less short-term pain and disability in the two-incision group, with no measureable differences in outcome at a minimum of one year postoperatively.
Patients with an acute distal biceps rupture were randomized to either a single-incision repair with use of two suture anchors (n = 47) or a double-incision repair with use of transosseous drill holes (n = 44). Patients were followed at three, six, twelve, and twenty-four months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) elbow score. Secondary outcomes included muscle strength, complication rates, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) scores.
All patients were male, with no significant differences in the mean age, percentages of dominant hands affected, or Workers' Compensation cases between groups. There were also no differences in the final outcomes (at two years) between the two groups (p = 0.4 for ASES pain score, p = 0.10 for ASES function score, p = 0.3 for DASH score, and p = 0.4 for PREE score). In addition, there were no differences in isometric extension, pronation, or supination strength at more than one year. A 10% advantage in final isometric flexion strength was seen in the patients treated with the double-incision technique (104% versus 94% in the single-incision group; p = 0.01). There were no differences in the rate of strength recovery. The single-incision technique was associated with more early transient neurapraxias of the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve (nineteen of forty-seven versus three of forty-three in the double-incision group, p < 0.001). There were four reruptures, all of which were related to patient noncompliance or reinjury during the early postoperative period and appeared to be unrelated to the fixation technique (p = 0.3).
There were no significant differences in outcomes between the single and double-incision distal biceps repair techniques other than a 10% advantage in final flexion strength with the latter. Most complications were minor, with a significantly greater prevalence in the single-incision group.

Download full-text


Available from: Ron El-Hawary, Jul 01, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Distal biceps tendon ruptures continue to be an important injury seen and treated by upper extremity surgeons. Since the mid-1980s, the emphasis has been placed on techniques that limit complications or improve initial tendon-to-bone fixation strength. Recently, basic science research has expanded the knowledge base regarding the biceps tendon structure, footprint anatomy, and biomechanics. Clinical data have further delineated the results of conservative and surgical management of both partial and complete tears in acute or chronic states. The current literature on the distal biceps tendon is described in detail.
    The Journal of hand surgery 03/2013; 38A(4). DOI:10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.01.042 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The preferred treatment of distal biceps tendon ruptures is by operative repair. However, the best approach for repair (single vs double incision) is still subject of debate. Grewal and colleagues recently presented the results of a randomized clinical trial evaluating two different surgical approaches for the repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures. Despite the fact that this article currently presents the highest level of evidence for the surgical repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures, we have some comments on the study that might be interesting to discuss. We think that some of the results and conclusions presented in this study need to be interpreted in the light of these comments.
    04/2013; 4(2):98-9. DOI:10.5312/wjo.v4.i2.98
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this biomechanical in vitro study was to compare the novel technique of double intramedullary cortical button (DICB) fixation with the well-established method of suture anchor (SA) fixation for distal biceps tendon repair. A matched-pair analysis (24 human cadaveric radii) was performed with respect to cyclic loadings and failure strengths. Twelve specimens per group were cyclically loaded for 1,000 cycles at 1.5 Hz from 5 to 50 N and from 5 to 100 N, respectively. The tendon-bone displacement was optically analysed using the Image J Software (National Institute of Health). Afterwards, all specimens were pulled to failure. Maximum load to failure and mode of failure were recorded. All DICB constructs passed the cyclic loading test, whereas 4 of the 12 specimens within the SA group failed by anchor pull-out. Cyclic loading showed a mean tendon-bone displacement of 0.6 ± 1.4 mm for the DICB group and 1.4 ± 1.4 mm for the SA group (n.s.) after 1,000 cycles with 50 N, and a mean displacement of 2.1 ± 2.4 mm for the DICB group and 3.5 ± 3.7 mm for the SA group (n.s.) after 1,000 cycles with 100 N. Load to failure testing showed a mean failure load of 312 ± 76 N and a stiffness of 67.1 ± 11.7 N/mm for the DICB technique. The mean load to failure for the SA repair was 200 ± 120 N (n.s.) and the stiffness was 55.9 ± 21.3 N/mm (n.s.). The novel technique of DICB fixation showed small tendon-bone displacement during cyclic testing and reliable fixation strength to the bone in load to failure. Moreover, all DICB constructs passed cyclic loadings without failure. Based on the current findings, a more aggressive postoperative rehabilitation may be allowed for the DICB repair in clinical use.
    Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy 07/2013; 23(3). DOI:10.1007/s00167-013-2590-0 · 2.84 Impact Factor