Functional outcome in patients who underwent distal biceps tendon repair
- 85 Downloads
To asses physical function and quality of life after distal biceps tendon repair and compare suture anchor and cortical button fixation. Secondarily, we assessed the impact of other factors: acute repair, graft use, concomitant arm conditions, contralateral rupture, and complications.
We approached all 50 patients that underwent distal biceps tendon rupture repair (2009–2016) to participate in our study and complete a questionnaire including: patient demographics, QuickDASH, Quality of life EQ-5D-5L, pain score, and Mayo Elbow Performance score (MEPS).
In total, 37 (76%) of 49 alive patients participated in our study. All were men, with a median age of 47 years. Median follow-up was 34 months (range 8–100 months). On average, we found perfect upper extremity (QuickDASH, median: 0, IQR 0–7.9; 53% had no [QuickDASH = 0] upper extremity disability) and elbow function (MEPS, median: 100, IQR 100–100; 83% had perfect [MEPS > 90] clinical elbow function), perfect quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, median: 1, IQR 0.85–1; 59% had perfect [EQ-5D-5L = 1] quality of life), and no pain (median 0, IQR 0–0; 68% had no pain). We found no difference in upper extremity (QuickDASH: anchor, median 1.1, IQR 0–6.8; endobutton, median 0, IQR 0–9.1, p = 0.972) and elbow (MEPS: anchor, median 100, IQR 100–100; endobutton, median 100, IQR 100–100, p = 0.895) function, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L: anchor, median 1, IQR 0.85–1; endobutton, median 1, IQR 0.84–1, p = 0.507), and pain score (anchor, median 0, IQR 0–0.5; endobutton, median 0, IQR 0–0, p = 0.742) when comparing the anchor to endobutton fixation technique.
Overall, patients have excellent outcome after distal biceps tendon rupture repair. There was no difference in patient-reported outcome measures between suture anchor and endobutton fixation.
Level of evidence
Level III, retrospective comparative study.
KeywordsBiceps Rupture Repair Elbow Patient-reported outcome Quality of life
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest related to the submitted article.
This study was approved by our institutional review and ethics board.
- 5.Cohen SB, Buckley PS, Neuman B, Leland JM, Ciccotti MG, Lazarus M (2016) A functional analysis of distal biceps tendon repair: single-incision Endobutton technique vs. two-incision modified Boyd–Anderson technique. Phys Sportsmed 44(1):59–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2016.1129260 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Hertel R (2016) Considerations of distal biceps tendon reinsertion: Commentary on an article by Christopher C. Schmidt, MD, et al.: “Factors that determine supination strength following distal biceps repair”. J Bone Jt Surg Am 98(14):e61. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00513 (1–2) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Phadnis J, Flannery O, Watts AC (2016) Distal biceps reconstruction using an Achilles tendon allograft, transosseous Endobutton, and Pulvertaft weave with tendon wrap technique for retracted, irreparable distal biceps ruptures. J Shoulder Elb Surg 25(6):1013–1019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ (2005) US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 43(3):203–220. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0740-5472(16)30491-3/rf0120 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar