Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Refixation techniques and approaches for distal biceps tendon ruptures: a systematic review of clinical studies.
Kodde, Izaäk F; Baerveldt, Remco C; Mulder, Paul G H; Eygendaal, Denise; van den Bekerom, Michel P J.
Afiliación
  • Kodde IF; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Upper Limb Unit, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands. Electronic address: if.kodde@hotmail.com.
  • Baerveldt RC; Department of Radiology, Medical Center Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
  • Mulder PG; Amphia Academy, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
  • Eygendaal D; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Upper Limb Unit, Amphia Hospital, Breda, The Netherlands.
  • van den Bekerom MP; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg ; 25(2): e29-37, 2016 Feb.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26709017
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.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Dispositivos de Fijación Ortopédica / Traumatismos del Brazo / Traumatismos de los Tendones / Procedimientos Ortopédicos Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Asunto de la revista: ORTOPEDIA Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Dispositivos de Fijación Ortopédica / Traumatismos del Brazo / Traumatismos de los Tendones / Procedimientos Ortopédicos Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Asunto de la revista: ORTOPEDIA Año: 2016 Tipo del documento: Article