Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 25, Issue 7, pp 2293–2297 | Cite as

Distal biceps brachii tendon repair: a systematic review of patient outcome determination using modified Coleman methodology score criteria

  • John Nyland
  • Brandon Causey
  • Jeff Wera
  • Ryan Krupp
  • David Tate
  • Amit Gupta
Elbow
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

This systematic literature review evaluated the methodological research design quality of studies that evaluated patient outcomes following distal biceps brachii tendon repair and developed evidence-based recommendations for future patient clinical outcomes research.

Methods

Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses criteria, and using “biceps brachii”, “tendon”, “repair” and “outcome assessment” search terms, the CINAHL, Academic Search Premier and MEDLINE databases were searched from January 1960–October 2015. The modified Coleman methodology score (MCMS) served as the primary outcome measure. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed for composite and component MCMS and for patient outcome assessment methodology use frequency.

Results

A total of 93 studies were evaluated. Overall MCMS was low (57.1 ± 14). Only 12 (12.9 %) had prospective cohort or randomized controlled trial designs. There was a moderate relationship between publication year and MCMS (r = 0.53, P < 0.0001). Although 61 studies (65.6 %) had adequate surgical descriptions, only 3 (3.2 %) had well-described rehabilitation. Of 2253 subjects, only 39 (1.7 %) were women. Studies published after 2008 had higher MCMS scores than studies published earlier (61.3 ± 10 versus 52.9 ± 16, P = 0.003).

Conclusion

Although overall research study methodological scores improved on average since 2008, generally low MCMS scores, retrospective designs, lack of eccentric elbow flexor or supinator strength testing, and poorly described surgical and rehabilitation descriptions remain commonplace. These findings decrease clinical study validity and generalizability.

Level of evidence

III.

Keywords

Upper extremity Surgery Muscle test Patient outcome Rehabilitation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Supplementary material

167_2015_3899_MOESM1_ESM.doc (50 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 50 kb)
167_2015_3899_MOESM2_ESM.doc (236 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 236 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bachoura A, Sasaki K, Kamineni S (2013) Analysis of age-related degenerative changes of the biceps brachii distal footprint. J Surg Orthop Adv 22:304–309CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beirer M, Friese H, Lenich A et al (2015) The Elbow Self-Assessment Score (ESAS): development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measurement tool for elbow disorders. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi: 10.1007/s00167-015-3647-z Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burns SP, Spanier DE (2005) Break-technique handheld dynamometry: relation between angular velocity and strength measurements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86:1420–1426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Country Trends (2008) English as the international language of science. Res Trends, Issue 6. http://www.researchtrends.com/issue6-july-2008/english-as-the-international-language-of-science/. Accessed 2 Dec 2015
  5. 5.
    Douma RKW, Soer R, Krijnen WP, Reneman M, van der Schans CP (2014) Reference values for isometric muscle force among workers for the Netherlands: a comparison of reference values. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil 6:10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freeman CR, McCormick KR, Mahoney D, Baratz M, Lubahn JD (2009) Nonoperative treatment of distal biceps tendon ruptures compared with a historical control group. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:2329–2334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hafez EA, Mansour HE, Hamza SH, Moftah SG, Younes TB, Ismail MA (2011) Bone mineral density changes in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord 4:87–94PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jakobsen RB, Engebretsen L, Slauterbeck JR (2005) An analysis of the quality of cartilage repair studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2232–2239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelly EW, Morrey BF, O’Driscoll SW (2000) Complications of repair of the distal biceps tendon with the modified two-incision technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:1575–1581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lippert L, Lynn S (2006) Clinical kinesiology and anatomy, 5th edn. F.A. Davis Company, Philadelphia, pp 147–160Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moritani T, Muramatsu S, Muro M (1987) Activity of motor units during concentric and eccentric contractions. Am J Phys Med 66:338–350PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Safran MR, Graham SM (2002) Distal biceps tendon ruptures: incidence, demographics, and the effect of smoking. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sica GT (2006) Bias in research studies. Radiology 238:780–789CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sutton KM, Dodds SD, Ahmad CS, Sethi PM (2010) Surgical treatment of distal biceps rupture. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18:139–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsuji S, Tsunoda N, Yata H, Katsukawa F, Onishi S, Yamazaki H (1995) Relation between grip strength and radial bone mineral density in young athletes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76:234–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Nyland
    • 1
    • 2
  • Brandon Causey
    • 2
  • Jeff Wera
    • 2
  • Ryan Krupp
    • 2
  • David Tate
    • 3
  • Amit Gupta
    • 3
  1. 1.Athletic Training Program, Kosair Charities College of Health and Natural SciencesSpalding UniversityLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  3. 3.Louisville Arm and Hand, Norton Healthcare PavilionLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations