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: 5.28). 07/2012; 94(13):1166-74. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00436
Source: PubMed


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 · 1.67 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.
    World Journal of Orthopaedics 04/2013; 4(2):98-9. DOI:10.5312/wjo.v4.i2.98
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reconstruction of the ruptured distal biceps tendon is best done with a cortical button technique according to recent biomechanical studies. However, clinical outcome studies that evaluate the cortical button reconstruction technique are scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of a cortical button reconstruction technique in patients with a traumatic distal biceps tendon rupture. Twenty-two patients with 24 traumatic distal biceps tendon ruptures underwent surgical treatment. Reconstructions were done using the Endobutton or Toggle Loc. Postoperative evaluation consisted of ROM, strength, stability, neurological status and standard radiographs in AP view and lateral direction. The Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) questionnaires were also obtained. At a median follow-up of 22 months, the mean strength for flexion was 100 % (SD 21.3) and for supination 97 % (SD 7.8), compared to the contralateral side. There were complications in 8 patients (36 %), and heterotopic ossifications were seen on radiographs in 23 % of patients. Heterotopic ossifications were symptomatic in one patient. The results after distal biceps tendon refixation with a cortical button were good according to ROM, MEPI and qDASH scores and strength. However, this procedure was accompanied with complications; in particular, the formation of heterotopic ossifications was frequently seen, though clinically relevant in only one patient. Case series, Level IV.
    Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy 06/2013; 23(3). DOI:10.1007/s00167-013-2571-3 · 3.05 Impact Factor
Show more