TY - JOUR
T1 - Refixation techniques and approaches for distal biceps tendon ruptures
T2 - A systematic review of clinical studies
AU - Kodde, Izaäk F.
AU - Baerveldt, Remco C.
AU - Mulder, Paul G.H.
AU - Eygendaal, Denise
AU - van den Bekerom, Michel P.J.
PY - 2016/2/1
Y1 - 2016/2/1
N2 - Background: Surgical fixation is the preferred method of treatment for the ruptured distal biceps tendon in active patients. To date, no fixation technique has been proven superior in a clinical setting. The purpose of the study was to systematically review the available literature on approach and fixation methods for distal biceps tendon repair in a clinical setting and to determine the optimal fixation methods of the distal biceps tendon on the radial tuberosity. Our hypothesis was that the outcomes would not be significantly different among the various fixation techniques and approaches. Methods: A systematic review of the available literature on anatomic reconstruction methods for distal biceps tendon ruptures was performed. The outcome measures evaluated were postoperative range of motion, elbow flexion and supination strength, and complication rates and types. Results: Forty articles were included, representing 1074 patients divided into 4 fixation groups: suture anchors, bone tunnels, interference screws, and cortical buttons. There was no significant difference in range of motion and strength between the different approaches and fixation techniques. Complications were significantly less common after the double-incision approach with bone tunnel fixation (P < .0005). Conclusions: There were significantly fewer complications after the double-incision approach with bone tunnel fixation. The double-incision approach had significantly fewer complications than the single-incision anterior approach, and the bone tunnel fixation had significantly fewer complications than the other 3 fixation techniques. However, as the double-incision approach was used with bone tunnel fixation in 84% of cases, there was a strong interrelationship between these variables.
AB - Background: Surgical fixation is the preferred method of treatment for the ruptured distal biceps tendon in active patients. To date, no fixation technique has been proven superior in a clinical setting. The purpose of the study was to systematically review the available literature on approach and fixation methods for distal biceps tendon repair in a clinical setting and to determine the optimal fixation methods of the distal biceps tendon on the radial tuberosity. Our hypothesis was that the outcomes would not be significantly different among the various fixation techniques and approaches. Methods: A systematic review of the available literature on anatomic reconstruction methods for distal biceps tendon ruptures was performed. The outcome measures evaluated were postoperative range of motion, elbow flexion and supination strength, and complication rates and types. Results: Forty articles were included, representing 1074 patients divided into 4 fixation groups: suture anchors, bone tunnels, interference screws, and cortical buttons. There was no significant difference in range of motion and strength between the different approaches and fixation techniques. Complications were significantly less common after the double-incision approach with bone tunnel fixation (P < .0005). Conclusions: There were significantly fewer complications after the double-incision approach with bone tunnel fixation. The double-incision approach had significantly fewer complications than the single-incision anterior approach, and the bone tunnel fixation had significantly fewer complications than the other 3 fixation techniques. However, as the double-incision approach was used with bone tunnel fixation in 84% of cases, there was a strong interrelationship between these variables.
KW - Distal biceps tendon
KW - Elbow
KW - Fixation technique
KW - Repair
KW - Rupture
KW - Surgical approach
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958748715&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84958748715&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.004
DO - 10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.004
M3 - Review article
C2 - 26709017
AN - SCOPUS:84958748715
SN - 1058-2746
VL - 25
SP - e29-e37
JO - Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
JF - Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
IS - 2
ER -