Anatomy of the Lateral Antebrachial Cutaneous Nerve: Landmarks for Procedures in the Cubital Fossa.

PURPOSE: The research outlines anatomical landmarks that may help surgeons in identifying the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve (LABCN) to minimize nerve damage during procedures in the cubital fossa. METHODS: Twenty-eight fresh cadaveric upper extremities were dissected. The course of the LABCN was followed from the emerging point at the biceps brachii tendon (BT) to the mid-forearm. The nerve's relationships with the BT, lateral epicondyle (LE), antebrachial vein, and brachioradialis (BR) muscle were measured and documented. RESULTS: The LABCN emerged lateral to the BT in all specimens and crossed medially at the top of the BT in 50% of the cadavers. It was deep to the forearm superficial fascia in all cadavers. At the level of the LE, the nerve was located at a mean of 6.3 ± 3.1 mm medial to the BR. The LABCN aligns with the medial border of the BR at a mean of 68 mm distal to the interepicondylar line. The mean distance from the LE to the LABCN at the interepicondylar line was 24.5 ± 7.2 mm. The LABCN and antebrachial vein are in the same deep fascia plane, on average 47.6 ± 5 mm (37-55) from the LE. At the elbow joint level, 82.1% of the specimens have two branches for the LABCN, whereas 17.9% demonstrated only a single branch. CONCLUSIONS: Lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve was situated approximately 6.8 cm distal to the interepicondyle line, positioned at the ulnar edge of the BR, and runs parallel with the antebrachial vein deep to the forearm fascia plane. The nerve crossed over the biceps tendon in 50% of the specimens. These findings suggest that the nerve should be identified 6-7 cm distal to the LE, followed by a proximal dissection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study may help surgeons in identifying LABCN, and reducing the potential risk of LABCN injury.

All-endoscopic approach for distal biceps tendon pathology: analysis of long-term outcomes in partial and complete ruptures.

BACKGROUND: Distal biceps tendon (DBT) pathology is a spectrum that ranges from tendinopathy to complete retracted ruptures, and surgical treatment is usually performed via open approaches. The purpose of this study was to analyze safety and long-term outcomes of all-endoscopic surgery for entire spectrum of primary DBT pathology. The hypothesis was that at an all-endoscopic technique would result in satisfactory clinical outcomes and a low complication rate. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent all-endoscopic surgery for primary isolated DBT pathology (bursitis, partial and acute/chronic complete tears) between January 2013 and December 2021 were assessed and analyzed retrospectively. Refractory bursitis and low-grade partial tears underwent endoscopic débridement, and high-grade partial tears and complete ruptures underwent all-endoscopic repair or graft reconstruction. Preoperative and follow-up assessment included functional assessment using Mayo Elbow Performance Score and a Patient-Reported Distal Biceps Score, and radiological assessment was performed using plain biplanar radiographs and sonography. Pre- and postoperative scores for the overall group, and for partial and complete tears, were compared using a paired t test. RESULTS: Overall, 26 male patients underwent an all-endoscopic surgery for DBT tears; the pathology was classified by endoscopic findings into 6 types, and follow-up period ranged from 21 to 125 months (mean 79.4 months). Nine chronic partial tears (35%) included predominantly bursitis (type I, n = 2) and predominantly partial tears (type IIA and B, n = 7). The complete tear group (65%) included isolated short or long head tears (type IIIA and IIIB, n = 2) and complete tendon ruptures (types IV, V, and VIA-C, n = 15). Endoscopic débridement of the bursitis/low-grade tears and repair of the high-grade and complete ruptures resulted in complete resolution of symptoms and significant improvement in both Mayo Elbow Performance Score and Patient-Reported Distal Biceps Score (P < .001). Autografts were necessary in 35% (6/17) of complete tears, and no significant difference was found in functional scores in this group as compared to those where primary repairs were possible. There were 2 minor complications (7.6%) that involved transient lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve neuropraxia. Follow-up sonography and radiographs showed an intact tendon and absence of heterotopic ossification or synostosis. CONCLUSIONS: An all-endoscopic approach for treating DBT pathology was safe and reliable and was associated with significant improvement in subjective and functional outcomes in the long-term. The dual-anchor onlay repair technique showed long-term radiologically demonstrable structural integrity of the tendon and was associated with a low minor complication rate and absence of heterotopic ossification.

Smaller radioulnar window is associated with a distal biceps tendon rupture in patients with limited forearm rotation: a 3-dimensional computed tomography comparison study of proximal impingement caused by radial tuberosity hypertrophy-a single-center case series.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that hypertrophy of the radial tuberosity may result in impingement leading to either a lesion of the distal biceps tendon or rotational impairment. Two previous studies on hypertrophy of the radial tuberosity had contradictory results and did not examine the distance between the radius and ulna: the radioulnar window. Therefore, this comparative cohort study aimed to investigate the radioulnar window in healthy subjects and compare it with that in subjects with either nontraumatic-onset rotational impairment of the forearm or nontraumatic-onset distal biceps tendon ruptures with rotational impairment of the forearm by use of dynamic 3-dimensional computed tomography measurements to attain a comprehensive understanding of the underlying etiology of distal biceps tendon ruptures. We hypothesized that a smaller radioulnar window would increase the risk of having a nontraumatic-onset distal biceps tendon rupture and/or rotational impairment compared with healthy individuals. METHODS: This study measured the distance between the radius and ulna at the level of the radial tuberosity using entire-forearm computed tomography scans of 15 patients at the Amphia Hospital between 2019 and 2022. Measurements of healthy subjects were compared with those of subjects who had nontraumatic-onset rotational impairment of the forearm and subjects who had a nontraumatic-onset distal biceps tendon rupture with rotational impairment of the forearm. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for individual comparisons, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for group comparisons. RESULTS: A significant difference was found between the radioulnar window in the forearms of the subjects with a distal biceps tendon rupture (mean, 1.6 mm; standard deviation 0.2 mm) and the radioulnar window in the forearms of the healthy subjects (mean, 4.8 mm; standard deviation, 1.4 mm; P = .018). A trend toward smaller radioulnar windows in the rotational impairment groups was also observed, although it was not significant (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The radioulnar window in the forearms of the subjects with a distal biceps tendon rupture with rotational impairment was significantly smaller than that in the forearms of the healthy subjects. Therefore, patients with a smaller radioulnar window have a higher risk of rupturing the distal biceps tendon. Nontraumatic-onset rotational impairment of the forearm may also be caused by a similar mechanism. Future studies are needed to further evaluate these findings.

Distal biceps tendon repair using a double intracortical button anatomic footprint repair technique.

INTRODUCTION: Distal biceps tendon repair is usually performed via a double-incision or single-incision bicortical drilling technique. However, these techniques are associated with specific complications and usually do not allow for anatomic footprint restoration. It was the aim of this study to report the clinical results of a double intracortical button anatomic footprint repair technique for distal biceps tendon tears. We hypothesized that this technique would result in supination strength comparable to the uninjured side with a low rerupture rate and minimal bony or neurologic complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-surgeon cohort study of a consecutive series of 22 patients with a mean (standard deviation) age of 50.7 (9.4) years and at least 1-year follow-up after distal biceps tendon repair. At final follow-up, complications, range of motion (ROM), the Patient-rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, patient satisfaction, and supination strength in neutral as well as 60° of supination were analyzed. Radiographic evaluation was performed on a computed tomography scan. RESULTS: One patient (4.5%) experienced slight paresthesia in the area of the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve. Heterotopic ossification was seen in 1 patient (4.5%). All patients recovered full ROM except for 1 who had 10° of loss of flexion and extension. Median PREE score was 4.6 (0-39.6), median MEP was 100 (70-100), and median DASH score was 1.4 (0-16.7). All but 1 patient were very satisfied with the outcome. The affected arm had a mean of 98% (±13%) of neutral supination strength (P = .633) and 94% (±12%) of supination strength in 60° (P = .054) compared with the contralateral, unaffected side. There were 4 cases (18.2%) of cortical thinning due to at least 1 button and 1 case of button pullout (4.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The double intracortical button anatomic footprint repair technique seems to provide reliable restoration of supination strength and excellent patient satisfaction while minimizing complications, particularly nerve damage and heterotopic ossification.

Sensory neurapraxia after distal biceps repair is not associated with patient-reported outcomes or satisfaction: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous neurapraxia is the most common complication following distal biceps tendon repair (DBTR). Currently, no patient demographic factors have been implicated in its occurrence, course, or resolution. The purpose of this study is to explore various patient demographics and their association with postoperative neurapraxia. Further it investigates how mental health scores correlate with patient-reported outcomes, and whether occurrence of neurapraxia alters this association. METHODS: This retrospective review evaluates a consecutive series of patients who underwent distal biceps repair with a single-incision cortical button technique. Patients with reported outcome data at a minimum of 1 year (n = 47) were included for analysis. Demographic data including age, sex, body mass index, diabetes, smoking status, and occurrence of neurapraxia were recorded. Patient-reported outcome measures include the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons-Elbow score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Visual Analog Scale for pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Score, and Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) Mental Component Score and Physical Component Score quality-of-life assessment. RESULTS: Postoperative neurapraxia of any duration occurred in 45% (21/47) of patients in this cohort following DBTR. Of these, 62% (13/21) reported resolution of symptoms by the latest follow-up. Mean time to resolution of neurapraxia was 148 days. Patient age, body mass index, smoking history, time to surgery, tear thickness, and increasing surgeon experience across the study period were not significantly associated with the incidence or time to resolution of postoperative neurapraxia. Scores for patient satisfaction, Visual Analog Scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, VR-12 Mental Component Score, VR-12 Physical Component Score, and flexion ROM did not differ significantly between patients with and without postoperative neurapraxia. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction following DBTR was not significantly associated with postoperative neurapraxia. Patient and surgical characteristics did not influence the occurrence or time to resolution of neurapraxia. The occurrence of postoperative neurapraxia did not result in significant functional limitations.

Distal biceps tendon repair: outcome and complications with single incision anchor fixation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the functional outcome and quality of life in distal biceps tendon repair with single incision technique and anchor fixation method. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was made of patients with complete distal biceps tendon rupture. The chosen repair method was single incision technique with anchor fixation. The outcome was assessed with functional testing of the elbow with strength and ROM. Additionally Mayo elbow performance index, Oxford elbow score, Disability arm hand shoulder questionnaire and patient rated elbow evaluation scores were used to evaluate quality of life. RESULTS: Of the 28 patients, the average strength in flexion and supination was decreased with 91% and 89% of the strength compared to the non-injured arm. ROM was preserved in flexion, extension, supination and pronation. The mean scores for quality of life evaluation were MEPS = 96 ± 7.8, OES = 46.8 ± 1.9, DASH = 1.0 ± 1.9 and PREE = 2.0 ± 3.6. LABCN injury was the most common temporary complication with 30% followed by pain with 23%. Two patients were identified with HO and 1 patient was identified with median nerve injury. There were no cases of radioulnar synostosis and PIN injury. CONCLUSION: Overall strength in flexion and supination were slightly decreased with preserved ROM. Patients reported nearly perfect quality of life as demonstrated with the scores. The complications rate was high with mainly minor complications. Distal biceps tendon repair with single incision technique and anchor fixation overall leads to a very satisfying outcome.

Impact of Bracing and Therapy Services on Perioperative Costs for Patients Undergoing Distal Biceps Tendon Repair.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to quantify and assess perioperative costs in an integrated healthcare system for patients undergoing distal biceps tendon (DBT) repair with and without the use of postoperative bracing and formal physical (PT) or occupational (OT) therapy services. In addition, we aimed to define clinical outcomes after DBT repair using a brace-free, therapy-free protocol. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all cases of DBT repairs within our integrated system from 2015 to 2021. We performed a retrospective review of a series of DBT repairs utilizing the brace-free, therapy-free protocol. For patients with our integrated insurance plan, a cost analysis was conducted. Claims were subdivided to assess total charges, costs to the insurer, and patient costs. Three groups were created for comparisons of total costs: (1) patients who had both postoperative bracing and PT/OT, (2) patients who had either postoperative bracing or PT/OT, and (3) patients who had neither postoperative bracing nor PT/OT. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients had our institutional insurance plan and were included in the cost analysis. For patients using both bracing and PT/OT, these services contributed 12% and 8% of the total perioperative costs, respectively. Implant costs accounted for 28% of the overall cost. Forty-four patients were included in the retrospective review with a mean follow-up of 17 months. The overall QuickDASH was 12; two cases resulted in unresolved neuropraxia, and there were no cases of re-rupture, infection, or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Within an integrated healthcare system, postoperative bracing and PT/OT services increase the cost of care for DBT repair and account for 20% of the total perioperative charges in cases where bracing and therapy are used. Considering the results of prior investigations indicating that formal PT/OT and bracing offer no clinical advantages over immediate range of motion (ROM) and self-directed rehabilitation, upper-extremity surgeons should forego routine brace and PT/OT utilization after DBT repair. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Safe Drill Trajectory for Anatomic Repair of Distal Biceps Tendon Through a Single Incision: A Cadaveric Study.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the safest drill trajectory to avoid injury to the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) when performing a repair of a distal biceps tendon to an anatomic location through an anterior, single-incision approach using cortical button fixation. METHODS: A standard anterior approach was performed in 10 cadaveric specimens to expose the distal biceps attachment. Three drill holes were made in the radial tuberosity from the center of the anatomic footprint for the distal biceps tendon insertion with the forearm fully supinated. Holes were made in 30° distal, transverse, and 30° proximal directions. Each hole was made by angling the trajectory from an anterior to posterior and ulnar to radial direction, leaving adequate bone on the ulnar side to accommodate an 8-mm tunnel for the purpose of docking the biceps tendon into bone. The proximity of each drill trajectory to the PIN was determined by making a second incision on the dorsum of the proximal forearm. A K-wire was passed through each hole, and the distance between the PIN and K-wire was measured for each trajectory. RESULTS: The distally directed drill hole placed the trajectory wire closest to the PIN (mean distance, 5.4 mm), contacting the K-wire in 3 cases. The transverse drill trajectory resulted in contact with the PIN in 1 case (mean distance, 7.6 mm). The proximal drill trajectory appeared safest, with no PIN contact (mean distance, 13.3 mm). CONCLUSIONS: In this cadaveric study, the proximal drill trajectory resulted in the widest clearance from the PIN. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: When performing repair of a distal biceps tendon to the anatomic location on the tuberosity, the drill trajectory from the center of the biceps footprint should be radial and proximal to provide the greatest separation between the drill guide and the PIN.

Reliability and Validity of the Hook Test for Diagnosis of Distal Biceps Tendon Ruptures.

PURPOSE: Although the initial description of the distal biceps tendon (DBT) hook test (HT) reported 100% sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp), subsequent retrospective series have demonstrated imperfect validity. The purpose of this investigation was to prospectively assess the validity and reliability of the HT for complete DBT ruptures. We aimed to determine the Sn/Sp and interrater reliability for the HT. METHODS: A consecutive series of adult patients presenting to our outpatient clinics with an elbow complaint was prospectively examined. Patients were included if they had undergone advanced imaging (magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound) that imaged the DBT and underwent DBT repair. There were four participating surgeons, all of whom were blinded to magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound prior to performing the HT. To determine the Sn/Sp of the HT and advanced imaging, intraoperative findings served as the primary reference standard. The interrater reliability of the HT was calculated for cases in which a primary examiner (surgeon) and secondary examiner (physician assistant or resident) performed the HT. RESULTS: Of 64 patients who had undergone advanced imaging, 28 (44%) underwent DBT surgery and were included in the assessment of Sn/Sp. The mean age was 49 years, and all patients were men. The Sn and Sp of the HT were 96% and 67%, respectively. Advanced imaging demonstrated 100% Sn and Sp. Twenty-five patients were evaluated by a primary and secondary examiner. The interrater reliability was substantial (Cohen kappa, 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: The Sn and Sp of the HT were 96% and 67%, respectively, when assessed prospectively. Advanced imaging findings (magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound) demonstrated 100% Sn and Sp. The HT can be performed reliably by examiners with varying experience levels. Considering the imperfect validity of the HT, we caution against the use of this examination alone to diagnose DBT ruptures. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic II.

Management of distal biceps tendon ruptures: a survey of fellowship-trained subspecialist elbow surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There are several approaches to the management of distal biceps tendon ruptures, with no consensus on what constitutes best practice. METHODS: An online survey queried the perceptions and management of distal biceps tendon ruptures amongst fellowship-trained subspecialty elbow surgeons, which primarily comprised of members of the Shoulder and Elbow Society of Australia, the national subspecialist interest group of the Australian Orthopaedic Association and the Mayo Clinic Elbow Club (Rochester, MN, USA). RESULTS: One hundred surgeons responded. The median (IQR) experience as orthopedic surgeons amongst respondents was 17 (10-23) years; 78% of respondents saw >10 cases of distal biceps tendon ruptures annually; 95% of respondents would recommend surgery for symptomatic radiologically-confirmed partial tears, the most common indications being pain (83%), weakness (60%), and tear size (48%). Forty-three percent of respondents would have grafts available for tears older than 6 weeks. The one-incision approach (70%) was preferred over two incisions (30%); 78% of one-incision users believed that their repair location was anatomic, compared to 100% of two-incision users. One-incision users were more likely to have encountered lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve (78% vs. 46%) and superficial radial nerve palsies (28% vs. 11%). Two-incision users were more likely to have encountered posterior interosseus nerve palsy (21% vs. 15%), heterotopic ossification (54% vs. 42%), and synostosis (14% vs. 0%). Re-ruptures were the most common cause of reoperation. The more conservative a respondent's postoperative immobilization was, the less likely they were to have ever encountered re-rupture (14% amongst cast users, 29% amongst splint/brace users, 49% amongst sling users, 100% amongst non-immobilizers). Thirty percent of respondents who placed elbow strength restrictions for 6 months postoperatively encountered re-rupture, compared to 40% amongst those who restricted for 6-12 weeks postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The operation rate for repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures amongst subspecialist elbow surgeons is high, as seen in our cohort. However, there is a large variation in the approach toward its management. One incision (anterior) was preferred over two incisions (anterior and posterior). Complications from repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures can be expected even amongst subspecialists, and are associated with surgical approach. The responses imply that more conservative postoperative rehabilitation may be associated with a lower risk of re-rupture.

The use of prescription testosterone is associated with an increased likelihood of experiencing a distal biceps tendon injury and subsequently requiring surgical repair.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, the use of testosterone therapy has increased over recent years. Anabolic steroid use has been associated with tendon rupture, although there is a paucity of evidence evaluating the risk of biceps tendon injury (BTI) with testosterone therapy. The aim of this study was to quantify the risk of BTI after the initiation of testosterone therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using the PearlDiver database. Records between 2011 and 2018 were queried to identify patients aged 35-75 years who filled a testosterone prescription for a minimum of 3 months. A control group was created, comprising patients aged 35-75 years who had never filled a prescription for exogenous testosterone. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients with distal biceps injuries and those undergoing surgical repair. Three matching processes were completed: one for the overall cohort, one for the cohort comprising only male patients, and one for the cohort comprising only female patients. Each cohort was matched to its control on age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, diabetes, tobacco use, and osteoporosis. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare rates of distal BTI and subsequent surgical repair in the testosterone groups with their control groups. RESULTS: A total of 776,974 patients had filled a prescription for testosterone for a minimum of 3 consecutive months. In the overall matched analysis between the testosterone and control groups (n = 291,610 in both), the mean age of the patients was 53.9 years and 23.1% were women. Within 1 year of filling exogenous testosterone prescriptions for a minimum of 3 consecutive months, 650 patients experienced a distal BTI compared with 159 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR], 4.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.45-4.89; P < .001). At any time after testosterone therapy, patients with testosterone use were more than twice as likely to experience a distal BTI as their matched controls (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.94-2.38). Patients who filled prescriptions for testosterone were more likely to undergo surgical repair within a year of the injury compared with the control group. A similar trend was seen in the cohort comprising male patients (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.29-2.07). CONCLUSION: Patients with prior prescription testosterone exposure have an increased rate of BTI and biceps tendon repair compared with patients without such exposure. This finding provides insight into the risk profile of testosterone therapy, and doctors should consider counseling patients about this risk, particularly male patients.

Trends and complications of distal biceps tendon repair among American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery part II oral examination candidates.

BACKGROUND: Surgical fixation of distal biceps tendon ruptures can restore supination strength and minimize biceps fatigue, resulting in high patient satisfaction rates. Surgical approaches can vary (single incision vs. double incision), and the number of fixation techniques has increased in recent years. The reported rate of postoperative complications after surgical repair of distal biceps tendon injuries is high, ranging from 15% to 35%. The purpose of this study was to assess the trends and postoperative complication profile among newly trained surgeons who performed distal biceps tendon repairs utilizing the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery database. METHODS: The American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery database was retrospectively queried for patients treated with distal biceps tendon repair by part II examination candidates between 2017 and 2020. Distal biceps tendon repairs were isolated using the Current Procedural Terminology code 24,342. Distal triceps tendon injuries were excluded with International Classification of Diseases code S46.3∗∗. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, and surgeon fellowship training were collected. Surgeon-reported postoperative 90-day complications, including general anesthetic, medical, and surgical complications, rates of readmission, and rates of reoperation were recorded. Comparisons of rates among patient groups organized by surgeon fellowship training were performed using the chi-squared test. RESULTS: A total of 2089 distal biceps tendon repairs were included in the analysis. The average patient age was 47.5 yr, and 97.3% of patients were men. The majority of cases was performed by surgeons with fellowship training in sports medicine, hand/upper extremity, and shoulder and elbow, with 867 (41.5%) cases performed by sports medicine-trained surgeons, 740 (35.4%) by hand/upper extremity-trained surgeons, and 313 (15.0%) by shoulder and elbow-trained surgeons. In total, 608 (29.1%) patients experienced an anesthetic (0.2%), medical (1.1%), or surgical (28.2%) complication. The most common surgical complications were nerve injury (20.6%), failure of tendon repair or fixation (2.4%), and infection (1.7%). The overall reoperation rate was 2.4%. There were no significant differences in complication or reoperation rates among subspecialty training received. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Among newly trained surgeons, those with fellowship training in sports medicine, hand/upper extremity, and shoulder and elbow performed the most distal biceps tendon repairs, and there was no difference in complication rates among subspecialty training received. Complication rates after distal biceps tendon repair performed by newly trained surgeons were similar to those previously reported in large cohort studies, with nerve injury as the most common complication.

Avoiding the posterior interosseous nerve during 2-incision distal biceps tendon repair: an anatomic study.

BACKGROUND: The posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) is the most commonly injured motor nerve during distal biceps tendon repair resulting in severe functional deficits. Anatomic studies of distal biceps tendon repairs have evaluated the proximity of the PIN to the anterior radial shaft in supination, but limited studies have evaluated the location of the PIN in relation to the radial tuberosity (RT), and none have examined its relation to the subcutaneous border of the ulna (SBU) with varying forearm rotation. This study evaluates the location of the PIN in relation to the RT and SBU to help guide surgeons in safe placement of the dorsal incision and the safest zones of dissection. METHODS: The PIN was dissected from arcade of Frohse to 2 cm distal to the RT in 18 cadaver specimens. Four lines were drawn perpendicular to the radial shaft at the proximal, middle, and distal aspect of and 1 cm distal to the RT in the lateral view. Measurements were recorded with a digital caliper along these lines to quantify the distance between the SBU and RT to the PIN with the forearm in neutral, supination, and pronation with the elbow at 90° flexion. Measurements were also made along the length of the radius at the volar, middle, and dorsal surfaces at the distal aspect of the RT to assess its proximity to the PIN. RESULTS: Mean distances to the PIN were greater in pronation than supination and neutral. The PIN crossed the volar surface of the distal aspect of the RT -6.9 ± 4.3 mm (-13, -3.0) in supination, -0.4 ± 5.8 mm (-9.9, 2.5) in neutral, and 8.5 ± 9.9 mm (-2.7, 13) in pronation. One centimeter distal to the RT, mean distance to the PIN was 0.54 ± 4.3 mm (-4.5, 8.8) in supination, 8.5 ± 3.1 mm (3.2, 14) in neutral, and 10 ± 2.7 mm (4.9, 16) in pronation. In pronation, mean distances from the SBU to the PIN at points A, B, C, and D were 41.3 ± 4.2, 38.1 ± 4.4, 34.9 ± 4.2, and 30.8 ± 3.9 mm, respectively. CONCLUSION: PIN location is quite variable, and to avoid iatrogenic injury during 2-incision distal biceps tendon repair, we recommend placement of the dorsal incision no more than 25 mm anterior to the SBU and carrying out deep dissection proximally first to identify the RT before continuing the dissection distally to expose the tendon footprint. The PIN was at risk of injury along the volar surface at the distal aspect of the RT in 50% with neutral rotation and 17% with full pronation.

All-suture anchors for distal biceps tendon repair: a preliminary outcome study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the clinical outcome of double intramedullary all-suture anchors' fixation for distal biceps tendon ruptures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective case series of patients who underwent primary distal biceps tendon repair with all-suture anchors was conducted. Functional outcome was assessed at a minimum follow-up of at 12 months based on the assessments of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Andrews-Carson Score (ACS), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain. Maximum isometric strength test for flexion and supination as well as postoperative range of motion (ROM) were determined for both arms. RESULTS: 23 patients treated with all-suture anchors were assessed at follow-up survey (mean age 56.5 ± 11.4 years, 96% male). The follow-up time was 20 months (range Q0.25-Q0.75, 15-23 months). The following outcome results were obtained: MEPS 100 (range Q0.25-Q0.75, 100-100); ACS 200 (range Q0.25-Q0.75, 195-200); QuickDASH 31 (range Q0.25-Q0.75, 30-31); VAS 0 (range Q0.25-Q0.75, 0-0). The mean strength compared to the uninjured side was 95.6% (range Q0.25-Q0.75, 80.9-104%) for flexion and 91.8 ± 11.6% for supination. There was no significant difference in ROM or strength compared to the uninjured side and no complications were observed in any patient. CONCLUSION: Distal biceps tendon refixation using all-suture anchors provides good-to-excellent results in terms of patient-reported and functional outcome. This repair technique appears to be a viable surgical option, although further long-term results are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV (case series).

Ultrasound Assessment of an Isolated Rupture of the Medial Bundle of a Bifid Distal Biceps Tendon.

This case study describes a patient with a clinically ruptured distal biceps tendon, with ultrasound detecting an isolated rupture of the medial bundle of a bifid distal biceps tendon. A 45-year-old male presented to the accident and emergency department with a week-old history of a right elbow injury. The ultrasound scan demonstrated a hypoechoic, corrugated distal biceps tendon with a tendon stump close to the radial tuberosity insertion in keeping with a rupture. However, a small caliber accessory or bifid distal biceps tendon was also identified and was intact. Typically, distal biceps tendon ruptures occur following a traumatic event with most detected clinically although imaging is required to confirm the diagnosis. Ultrasound is utilized to assess these injuries, and several different techniques or approaches are described in the literature. A combination of these approaches is required to make an accurate diagnosis. Detection of bifid distal biceps tendons is important for patient management, especially if a surgical repair is considered. This case highlights the anatomical variant of a bifid distal biceps tendon, which was ruptured clinically. The ultrasound diagnosis of distal biceps tendon ruptures can be challenging, especially when there is limited tendon retraction. This case also demonstrated the importance of dynamic ultrasound in the assessment of tendon ruptures.

Distal biceps tendon ruptures occur with the almost extended elbow and supinated forearm - an online video analytic study.

BACKGROUND: Distal biceps tendon ruptures can lead to significant restrictions in affected patients. The mechanisms of injury described in scientific literature are based exclusively on case reports and theoretical models. This study aimed to determine the position of the upper extremities and forces involved in tendon rupture through analyzing video recordings. METHODS: The public YouTube.com database was queried for videos capturing a clear view of a distal biceps tendon rupture. Two orthopedic surgeons independently assessed the videos for the activity that led to the rupture, the arm position at the time of injury and the forces imposed on the elbow joint. RESULTS: Fifty-six video segments of a distal biceps rupture were included (55 male). In 96.4%, the distal biceps tendon ruptured with the forearm supinated and the elbow isometrically extended (non-dynamic muscle engagement) (71.4%) or slightly flexed (24%). The most common shoulder positions were adduction (85.7%) and neutral position with respect to rotation (92.9%). Most frequently a tensile force was enacted on the elbow (92.9%) and the most common activity observed was deadlifting (71.4%). CONCLUSION: Distal biceps tendon ruptures were most commonly observed in weightlifting with a slightly flexed or isometrically extended elbow and forearm supination. These observations may provide useful information for sports specific evidence-based injury prevention, particularly in high performing athletes and individuals engaged in resistance training. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Observational study.

Systematic review of distal biceps tendon rupture in athletes: treatment and rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Distal biceps tendon rupture is a rare injury associated with decreased elbow flexion and forearm supination strength. This impairment is not tolerated by high-demand patients like athletes. PURPOSE: To review treatment and rehabilitation applied to injured athletes and study their impact in return to sports. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus online databases were searched. A systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines; studies published on distal biceps tendon rupture treatment and rehabilitation of athletes until June 30, 2021, were identified. A quantitative synthesis of factor related to return to preinjury sport activity was made. RESULTS: Ten articles were identified, including 157 athletes. Mean age was 40.5 years, and the dominant arm was injured in 103 cases (66%). Rupture was acute in 121 athletes (77%), and the mean follow-up was 25.7 months. A hundred and fifty-three athletes (97.5%) successfully returned to sport within a mean time of 6.2 months. Surgical treatment was followed in all cases. One-incision technique was chosen in 115 (73%) and suture anchor fixation in 52 (33%) cases. No postsurgical immobilization was reported in 38 (24%) and immobilization for 2 weeks in 124 (79%) athletes. Decreased supination-pronation and flexion-extension arc was found in 63 (40%) and 27 (17%) cases, respectively. Earlier return to sport was associated with nondominant-side (P = .007) and acute (P < .001) injuries, participation in weightlifting (P = .001), double-incision approach (P = .005), cortical button fixation (P < .001), and absence of supination-pronation restriction (P = .032). Time of return to sport activity was independent of rehabilitation, including immobilization (P = .539) and strengthening (P = .155), and decreased flexion-extension arc (P = .059). CONCLUSION: Athletes sustaining distal biceps tendon rupture have a high postoperative return to sport rate, independently of selected surgical technique or rehabilitation program. However, a relation between the surgical technique and time of return to sport was found. Rehabilitation did not influence time of return to sport.

Operative vs. nonoperative treatment of distal biceps ruptures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Ruptures of the distal biceps tendon are most commonly due to traumatic eccentric loading in the middle-aged male population and can result in functional deficits. Although surgical repair has been demonstrated to result in excellent outcomes, there are few comparative studies that show clear functional benefits over nonoperative management. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the functional outcomes of operative and nonoperative management for these injuries. We hypothesized that operative treatment would be associated with significantly superior outcomes. METHODS: According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials), Embase, and Web of Science databases. Outcomes of interest included range of motion (ROM), strength, endurance, and patient-reported outcomes including Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scores. Summary effect estimates of the mean difference between operative and nonoperative management for each outcome were estimated in mixed effects models. RESULTS: Of an initially identified 6478 studies, 62 reported outcomes for a total of 2481 cases (2402 operative, 79 nonoperative), with an overall average age of 47.4 years (47.3 for operative, 50.3 for nonoperative). There were 2273 (98.5%) males and 35 (1.5%) females among operative cases, whereas all 79 (100%) nonoperative cases were males. Operative management was associated with a significantly higher flexion strength (mean difference, 25.67%; P < .0001), supination strength (mean difference, 27.56%; P < .0001), flexion endurance (mean difference, 11.12%; P = .0268), and supination endurance (mean difference, 33.86%; P < .0001). Patient-reported DASH and MEPS were also significantly superior in patients who underwent surgical repair, with mean differences of -7.81 (P < .0001) and 7.41 (P = .0224), respectively. Comparative analyses for ROM and pain VAS were not performed because of limited reporting in the literature for nonoperative management. CONCLUSION: This study represents the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare functional and clinical outcomes following operative and nonoperative treatment of distal biceps tendon ruptures. Operative treatment resulted in superior elbow and forearm strength and endurance, as well as superior DASH and MEPS.

Bicortical suspensory button fixation yields greater ultimate load to failure over unicortical all-suture anchor fixation in distal biceps brachii tendon repair.

BACKGROUND: Various distal biceps tendon repair techniques exist, each with their own biomechanical profile. Recently, all-suture anchor fixation has recently become an intriguing option for distal biceps fixation, compared with the proven track record of the suspensory cortical button. In addition, intramedullary techniques have been utilized as a means to avoid complications such as nerve damage seen with extramedullary fixation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to perform a comparative biomechanical analysis of 4 unique distal biceps tendon fixation methods: Unicortical/intramedullary all-suture anchor fixation (UIAS), Bicortical/extramedullary all-suture anchor fixation (BEAS), Unicortical/intramedullary suspensory button fixation (UISB), and Bicortical/extramedullary suspensory button fixation (BESB). STUDY DESIGN: Controlled Laboratory study. METHODS: 24 fresh-frozen cadaveric elbows were randomized into 4 groups providing data from 6 specimens, with each group undergoing a different repair technique. The specimens underwent 2 studies: Cyclic loading and Ultimate Load to failure (ULTF) testing. The repaired elbows were cycled 3000 times between 0 and 90 degrees of flexion, with displacement under cyclic loading at the repair site measured using a differential variable reductance transducer. ULTF test was performed with the elbow flexed at 90 degrees. The modes of failure were recorded. RESULTS: The mean cyclic displacements between the 4 groups were as follows: UIAS: 1.45 ± 1.04 mm; BEAS: 2.75 ± 1.32 mm; UISB: 1.45 ± .776 mm; BESB: 2.66 ± 1.18 mm (p= 0.077). Bicortical repairs displayed greater displacement after cyclic loading when compared with unicortical repairs regardless of anchor used (p= 0.007). The mean ULTF for each group was as follows: all-suture intramedullary: 200 N; all-suture extramedullary: 330 N; cortical-button intramedullary: 256 N; cortical-button extramedullary: 342 N). All-suture unicortical/intramedullary repair had a significantly lower ULTF (200 N) compared with cortical-button Bicortical/extramedullary repair (342 N) (p=0.043). CONCLUSION: Bicortical/extramedullary suspensory button fixation demonstrated a greater ultimate load to failure when compared with unicortical/intramedullary all-suture anchor fixation. These findings suggest that bicortical/extramedullary suspensory cortical button fixation is a biomechanically superior construct as compared to unicortical/intramedullary all-suture anchor fixation. However, there was no significant difference in ULTF between extra-medullary, Bicortical button or Bicortical, all-suture anchor fixation.

Three weeks of indomethacin is not superior to 1 week of meloxicam as prophylaxis for heterotopic ossifications after distal biceps tendon repair with a single-incision technique.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of 3 weeks of indomethacin, a nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, in comparison to 1 week of meloxicam as prophylaxis for heterotopic ossifications (HOs) after distal biceps tendon repair. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was performed on 78 patients undergoing distal biceps tendon repair between 2008 and 2019. From 2008 to 2016, patients received meloxicam 15 mg daily for the period of 1 week as usual care. From 2016 onward, the standard protocol was changed to indomethacin 25 mg 3 times daily for 3 weeks. All patients underwent a single-incision repair with a cortical button technique. The postoperative rehabilitation protocol was similar for all patients. The postoperative radiographs at 8-week follow-up were assessed blindly by 7 independent assessors. If HOs were present, it was classified according to the Ilahi-Gabel classification for size and according to the Gärtner-Heyer classification for density. Statistical analysis was performed to analyze the difference in HO between the patients who were treated with indomethacin and with meloxicam. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients, with a mean age of 48.8 years (range 30-72) were included. The mean follow-up after surgery was 12 months (range 2-45). Indomethacin (21 days, 25 mg 3 times per day) was prescribed to 26 (33%) patients. The 52 other patients (67%) were prescribed meloxicam 15 mg daily for 7 days. HOs were seen in 19 patients 8 weeks postoperatively. Five of 26 patients treated with indomethacin developed HO, and 14 of 52 patients treated with meloxicam developed HO (P = .5). Two patients had symptomatic HO with minor restrictions in movement; neither patient was treated with indomethacin. Significantly more HOs were seen in patients with a longer time from injury to surgery (P = .01) The intraclass correlation score for reliability between assessors for HO scoring on postoperative radiographs was good to excellent for both classifications. CONCLUSION: In this study, HOs were seen in 24% of postoperative radiographs. Three weeks of indomethacin was not superior to meloxicam for 1 week for the prevention of HO after single-incision distal biceps tendon repair.