The utility of botulinum toxin A in the repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of our study is to report the outcomes and complications in patients who underwent distal biceps tendon repair with the use of Botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) as an adjunct to surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of 14 patients who underwent 15 distal biceps tendon repairs was performed. All repaired tendons had their correlating muscle bellies injected intraoperatively with a mixture of 100U of BoNT-A and 10 ml of normal saline. Each patient was evaluated for surgical and post-operative complications and followed with Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Disability Scores. RESULTS: The cohort was exclusively male, 14/14 (100%). The mean age at procedure was 52.1 years (range: 29-65 years). Types of injuries repaired included: 12 acute biceps tendon ruptures, one chronic partial (> 50% of tendon) biceps tear, and two chronic biceps ruptures. Average final follow-up was 32.9 months (SD: 19.6; range: 7.07-61.72). Average time to repair of chronic injury was 5.75 months (range: 2-12 months). There were no intraoperative complications, and all patients were discharged home on the day of surgery. Average DASH score at latest follow-up was 4.9 (range: 0.0-12.5). All patients had return of function of paralyzed muscle prior to final follow-up. One patient required an incision and drainage for a deep infection 1 week post-operatively, without any further complications. Another patient required operative removal of heterotopic ossification located around the tendon fixation site, which was the result of a superficial infection treated with antibiotics 2 weeks post-operatively. This patient later healed with improvement in supination/pronation range-of-motion and no further complications. CONCLUSIONS: Injection of BoNT-A is safe and effective to protect distal biceps tendon repair during the early phases of bone-tendon healing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: BoNT-A may is safe and effective to protect distal biceps tendon repair. The utility of BoNT-A as an adjunct to surgical repair may be applicable to acute or chronic tears as well as repairs in the non-compliant patient without decreases in functional scores after return of function of the biceps muscle. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Do higher-volume hospitals provide better value in revision hip and knee arthroplasty?

AIMS: The purpose of this study is to determine if higher volume hospitals have lower costs in revision hip and knee arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We questioned the Centres for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Charge Data and identified 789 hospitals performing a total of 29 580 revision arthroplasties in 2014. Centres were dichotomised into high-volume (performing over 50 revision cases per year) and low-volume. Mean total hospital-specific charges and inpatient payments were obtained from the database and stratified based on Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) codes. Patient satisfaction scores were obtained from the multiyear CMS Hospital Compare database. RESULTS: High-volume hospitals comprised 178 (30%) of the total but performed 15 068 (51%) of all revision cases, including 509 of 522 (98%) of the most complex DRG 466 cases. While high-volume hospitals had higher Medicare inpatient payments for DRG 467 ($21 458 versus $20 632, p = 0.038) and DRG 468 ($17 003 versus $16 120, p = 0.011), there was no difference in hospital specific charges between the groups. Higher-volume facilities had a better CMS hospital star rating (3.63 versus 3.35, p < 0.001). When controlling for hospital geographic and demographic factors, high-volume revision hospitals are less likely to be in the upper quartile of inpatient Medicare costs for DRG 467 (odds ratio (OR) 0.593, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.374 to 0.941, p = 0.026) and DRG 468 (OR 0.451, 95% CI 0.297 to 0.687, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While a high-volume hospital is less likely to be a high cost outlier, the higher mean Medicare reimbursements at these facilities may be due to increased case complexity. Further study should focus on measures for cost savings in revision total joint arthroplasties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1611-17.