Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 20 of 51
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_18 | Pages 36 - 36
14 Nov 2024
Zderic I Kraus M Rossenberg LV Gueorguiev B Richards G Pape HC Pastor T Pastor T
Full Access

Introduction. Tendon ruptures are a common injury and often require surgical intervention to heal. A refixation is commonly performed with high-strength suture material. However, slipping of the thread is unavoidable even at 7 knots potentially leading to reduced compression of the sutured tendon at its footprint. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical properties and effectiveness of a novel dynamic high-strength suture, featuring self-tightening properties. Method. Distal biceps tendon rupture tenotomies and subsequent repairs were performed in sixteen paired human forearms using either conventional or the novel dynamic high-strength sutures in a paired design. Each tendon repair utilized an intramedullary biceps button for radial fixation. Biomechanical testing aimed to simulate an aggressive postoperative rehabilitation protocol stressing the repaired constructs. For that purpose, each specimen underwent in nine sequential days a daily mobilization over 300 cycles under 0-50 N loading, followed by a final destructive test. Result. After the ninth day of cyclic loading, specimens treated with the dynamic suture exhibited significantly less tendon elongation at both proximal and distal measurement sites (-0.569±2.734 mm and 0.681±1.871 mm) compared to the conventional suture group (4.506±2.169 mm and 3.575±1.716 mm), p=0.003/p<0.002. Gap formation at the bone-tendon interface was significantly lower following suturing using dynamic suture (2.0±1.6 mm) compared to conventional suture (4.5±2.2 mm), p=0.04. The maximum load at failure was similar in both treatment groups (dynamic suture: 374± 159 N; conventional suture: 379± 154 N), p=0.925. The predominant failure mechanism was breakout of the button from the bone (dynamic suture: 5/8; conventional suture: 6/8), followed by suture rupturing, suture unraveling and tendon cut-through. Conclusion. From a biomechanical perspective, the novel dynamic high-strength suture demonstrated higher resistance against gap formation at the bone tendon interface compared to the conventional suture, which may contribute to better postoperative tendon integrity and potentially quicker functional recovery in the clinical setting


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 9 | Pages 978 - 985
1 Sep 2024
Savoie III FH Delvadia BP Tate JP Winter JE Williams GH Sherman WF O’Brien MJ

Rotator cuff tears are common in middle-aged and elderly patients. Despite advances in the surgical repair of rotator cuff tears, the rates of recurrent tear remain high. This may be due to the complexity of the tendons of the rotator cuff, which contributes to an inherently hostile healing environment. During the past 20 years, there has been an increased interest in the use of biologics to complement the healing environment in the shoulder, in order to improve rotator cuff healing and reduce the rate of recurrent tears. The aim of this review is to provide a summary of the current evidence for the use of forms of biological augmentation when repairing rotator cuff tears.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):978–985.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_3 | Pages 38 - 38
23 Feb 2023
Ernstbrunner L Almond M Rupasinghe H Jo O Zbeda R Ackland D Ek E
Full Access

The extracortical single-button (SB) inlay repair is one of the most preferred distal biceps tendon repair techniques. However, specific complications such as neurovascular injury and non-anatomic repairs have led to the development of techniques that utilize intracortical double-button (DB) fixation. To compare the biomechanical stability of the extracortical SB repair with the anatomical DB repair technique. Controlled laboratory study. The distal biceps tendon was transected in 18 cadaveric elbows from 9 donors. One elbow of each donor was randomly assigned to the extracortical SBor anatomical DB group. Both groups were cyclically loaded with 60N over 1000 cycles between 90° of flexion and full extension. The elbow was then fixed in 90° of flexion and the repair construct loaded to failure. Gap-formation and construct stiffness during cyclic loading, and ultimate load to failure was analysed. After 1000 cycles, the anatomical DB technique compared with the extracortical SB technique showed significantly less gap-formation (mean difference 1.2 mm; p=0.017) and significantly more construct stiffness (mean difference 31 N/mm; p=0.023). Ultimate load to failure was not significantly different comparing both groups (SB, 277 N ±92 vs. DB, 285 N ±135; p=0.859). The failure mode in the anatomical DB group was significantly different compared with the extracortical SB technique (p=0.002) and was due to fracture avulsion of the BicepsButton in 7 out of 9 specimens (vs. none in SB group). Our study shows that the intracortical DB technique produces equivalent or superior biomechanical performance to the SB technique. The DB repair technique reduces the risk of nerve injury and better restores the anatomical footprint of biceps tendon. The DB technique may offer a clinically viable alternative to the SB repair technique


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_2 | Pages 11 - 11
10 Feb 2023
Boyle A George C MacLean S
Full Access

A larger radial tuberosity, and therefore a smaller radioulnar space, may cause mechanical impingement of the DBT predisposing to tear. We sought to investigate anatomic factors associated with partial DBT tears by retrospectively reviewing 3-T MRI scans of elbows with partial DBT tears and a normal elbow comparison group

3-T MRI scans of elbows with partial DBT tears and elbows with no known pathology were reviewed retrospectively by two independent observers. Basic demographic data were collected and measurements of radial tuberosity length, radial tuberosity thickness, radio-ulnar space, and radial tuberosity-ulnar space were made using simultaneous tracker lines and a standardised technique. The presence or absence of enthesophytes and the presence of a single or double DBT were noted.

26 3-T MRI scans of 26 elbows with partial DBT tears and 30 3-T MRI scans of 30 elbows without pathology were included. Basic demographic data was comparable between the two groups. The tear group showed statistically significant larger mean measurements for radial tuberosity length (24.3mm vs 21.3mm, p=0.002), and radial tuberosity thickness (5.5mm vs 3.7mm, p=<0.0001. The tear group also showed statistically significant smaller measurements for radio-ulnar space (8.2mm vs 10.0mm, p=0.010), and radial tuberosity-ulnar space (7.2mm vs 9.1mm, p=0.013). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between partial DBT tears and presence of enthesophytes (p=0.007) as well as between partial DBT tears and having two discrete DBTs rather than a single or interdigitating tendon (p=<0.0001).

Larger radial tuberosities, and smaller radio-ulnar and radial tuberosity-ulnar spaces are associated with partial DBT tears. This may be due to chronic impingement, tendon delamination and consequent weakness which ultimately leads to tears. Enthesophytes may be associated with tears for the same reason. Having two discrete DBTs that do not interdigitate prior to insertion is also associated with partial tears.


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 12, Issue 1 | Pages 30 - 33
1 Feb 2023

The February 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Arthroscopic capsular release or manipulation under anaesthesia for frozen shoulder?; Distal biceps repair through a single incision?; Distal biceps tendon ruptures: diagnostic strategy through physical examination; Postoperative multimodal opioid-sparing protocol vs standard opioid prescribing after knee or shoulder arthroscopy: a randomized clinical trial; Graft healing is more important than graft technique in massive rotator cuff tear; Subscapularis tenotomy versus peel after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty; Previous rotator cuff repair increases the risk of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Conservative versus operative treatment of acromial and scapular spine fractures following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 11, Issue 6 | Pages 31 - 34
1 Dec 2022

The December 2022 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Biceps tenotomy versus soft-tissue tenodesis in females aged 60 years and older with rotator cuff tears; Resistance training combined with corticosteroid injections or tendon needling in patients with lateral elbow tendinopathy; Two-year functional outcomes of completely displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adolescents; Patients who undergo rotator cuff repair can safely return to driving at two weeks postoperatively; Are two plates better than one? A systematic review of dual plating for acute midshaft clavicle fractures; Treatment of acute distal biceps tendon ruptures; Rotator cuff tendinopathy: disability associated with depression rather than pathology severity; Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty implications in young patients with post-traumatic sequelae


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 3, Issue 10 | Pages 826 - 831
28 Oct 2022
Jukes C Dirckx M Bellringer S Chaundy W Phadnis J

Aims. The conventionally described mechanism of distal biceps tendon rupture (DBTR) is of a ‘considerable extension force suddenly applied to a resisting, actively flexed forearm’. This has been commonly paraphrased as an ‘eccentric contracture to a flexed elbow’. Both definitions have been frequently used in the literature with little objective analysis or citation. The aim of the present study was to use video footage of real time distal biceps ruptures to revisit and objectively define the mechanism of injury. Methods. An online search identified 61 videos reporting a DBTR. Videos were independently reviewed by three surgeons to assess forearm rotation, elbow flexion, shoulder position, and type of muscle contraction being exerted at the time of rupture. Prospective data on mechanism of injury and arm position was also collected concurrently for 22 consecutive patients diagnosed with an acute DBTR in order to corroborate the video analysis. Results. Four videos were excluded, leaving 57 for final analysis. Mechanisms of injury included deadlift, bicep curls, calisthenics, arm wrestling, heavy lifting, and boxing. In all, 98% of ruptures occurred with the arm in supination and 89% occurred at 0° to 10° of elbow flexion. Regarding muscle activity, 88% occurred during isometric contraction, 7% during eccentric contraction, and 5% during concentric contraction. Interobserver correlation scores were calculated as 0.66 to 0.89 using the free-marginal Fleiss Kappa tool. The prospectively collected patient data was consistent with the video analysis, with 82% of injuries occurring in supination and 95% in relative elbow extension. Conclusion. Contrary to the classically described injury mechanism, in this study the usual arm position during DBTR was forearm supination and elbow extension, and the muscle contraction was typically isometric. This was demonstrated for both video analysis and ‘real’ patients across a range of activities leading to rupture. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):826–831


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 11, Issue 2 | Pages 31 - 34
1 Apr 2022


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 10, Issue 5 | Pages 29 - 32
1 Oct 2021


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 7 | Pages 1284 - 1291
1 Jul 2021
Carter TH Karunaratne BJ Oliver WM Murray IR White TO Reid JT Duckworth AD

Aims. Acute distal biceps tendon repair reduces fatigue-related pain and minimizes loss of supination of the forearm and strength of flexion of the elbow. We report the short- and long-term outcome following repair using fixation with a cortical button techqniue. Methods. Between October 2010 and July 2018, 102 patients with a mean age of 43 years (19 to 67), including 101 males, underwent distal biceps tendon repair less than six weeks after the injury, using cortical button fixation. The primary short-term outcome measure was the rate of complications. The primary long-term outcome measure was the abbreviated Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score. Secondary outcomes included the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), EuroQol five-dimension three-level score (EQ-5D-3L), satisfaction, and return to function. Results. Eight patients (7.8%) had a major complication and 34 (33.3%) had a minor complication. Major complications included re-rupture (n = 3; 2.9%), unrecovered nerve injury (n = 4; 3.9%), and surgery for heterotopic ossification (n = 1; 1.0%). Three patients (2.9%) overall required further surgery for a complication. Minor complications included neurapraxia (n = 27; 26.5%) and superficial infection (n = 7; 6.9%). A total of 33 nerve injuries occurred in 31 patients (30.4%). At a mean follow-up of five years (1 to 9.8) outcomes were available for 86 patients (84.3%). The median QuickDASH, OES, EQ-5D-3L, and satisfaction scores were 1.2 (IQR 0 to 5.1), 48 (IQR 46 to 48), 0.80 (IQR 0.72 to 1.0), and 100/100 (IQR 90 to 100), respectively. Most patients were able to return to work (81/83, 97.6%) and sport (51/62,82.3%). Unrecovered nerve injury was associated with an inferior outcome according to the QuickDASH (p = 0.005), OES (p = 0.004), EQ-5D-3L (p = 0.010), and satisfaction (p = 0.024). Multiple linear regression analysis identified an unrecovered nerve injury to be strongly associated with an inferior outcome according to the QuickDASH score (p < 0.001), along with infection (p < 0.001), although re-rupture (p = 0.440) and further surgery (p = 0.652) were not. Conclusion. Acute distal biceps tendon repair using cortical button fixation was found to result in excellent patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life. Although rare, unrecovered nerve injury adversely affects outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1284–1291


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 103-B, Issue SUPP_8 | Pages 5 - 5
1 May 2021
Carter TH Karunaratne BJ Oliver WM Murray IR Reid JT White TO Duckworth AD
Full Access

Acute distal biceps tendon repair reduces fatigue-related pain and minimises loss of forearm supination and elbow flexion strength. We report the short- and long-term outcome following repair using an EndoButton technique. Between 2010 – 2018, 102 patients (101 males; mean age 43 years) underwent acute (□6 weeks) distal biceps tendon repair using an EndoButton technique. The primary short-term outcome was complications. The primary long-term outcome was the Quick-DASH (Q-DASH). Secondary outcomes included the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D), return to function and satisfaction. At mean short-term follow-up of 4 months (2.0 – 55.5) eight patients (7.8%) experienced a major complication and 34 patients (33.3%) experienced a minor complication. Major complications included re-rupture (n=3, 2.9%), unrecovered nerve injury (n=4, 3.9%) and surgery for heterotopic ossification excision (n=1, 1.0%). Three patients (2.9%) required surgery for a complication. Minor complications included neuropraxia (n=27, 26.5%) and superficial infection (n=7, 6.9%). At mean follow-up of 5 years (1 – 9.8) outcomes were collected from 86 patients (84.3%). The median Q-DASH, OES, EQ-5D and satisfaction scores were 1.2 (IQR 0 – 5.1), 48 (IQR, 46 – 48), 0.80 (IQR, 0.72 – 1.0) and 100/100 (IQR, 90 – 100) respectively. Most patients returned to sport (82.3%) and employment (97.6%) following surgery. Unrecovered nerve injury was associated with a poor outcome according to the Q-DASH (p< 0.001), although re-rupture and further surgery were not (p > 0.05). Acute distal biceps tendon repair using an EndoButton technique results in excellent patient reported outcomes and health-related quality of life. Although rare, unrecovered nerve injury adversely affects outcome


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 10, Issue 2 | Pages 37 - 40
1 Apr 2021


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1608 - 1617
1 Dec 2020
Castioni D Mercurio M Fanelli D Cosentino O Gasparini G Galasso O

Aims. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate differences in functional outcomes and complications between single- (SI) and double-incision (DI) techniques for the treatment of distal biceps tendon rupture. Methods. A comprehensive search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central databases was conducted to identify studies reporting comparative results of the SI versus the DI approach. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was used for search strategy. Of 606 titles, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria; methodological quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Random- and fixed-effects models were used to find differences in outcomes between the two surgical approaches. The range of motion (ROM) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores, as well as neurological and non-neurological complications, were assessed. Results. A total of 2,622 patients were identified. No significant differences in DASH score were detected between the techniques. The SI approach showed significantly greater ROM in flexion (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.508; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.904 to -0.112) and pronation (SMD -0.325, 95% CI -0.637 to -0.012). The DI technique was associated with significantly less risk of lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve damage (odds ratio (OR) 4.239, 95% CI 2.171 to 8.278), but no differences were found for other nerves evaluated. The SI group showed significantly fewer events of heterotopic ossification (OR 0.430, 95% CI 0.226 to 0.816) and a lower reoperation rate (OR 0.503, 95% CI 0.317 to 0.798). Conclusion. No significant differences in functional scores can be expected between the SI and DI approaches after distal biceps tendon repair. The SI approach showed greater flexion and pronation ROM and a lower risk of heterotopic ossification and reoperation. The DI approach was favourable in terms of lower risk of neurological complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1608–1617


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 102-B, Issue SUPP_8 | Pages 18 - 18
1 Aug 2020
Goetz TJ Mwaturura T Li A
Full Access

Previous studies describing drill trajectory for single incision distal biceps tendon repair suggest aiming ulnar and distal (Lo et al). This suggests that the starting point of the drill would be anterior and radial to the anatomic insertion of the distal biceps tendon. Restoration of the anatomic footprint may be important for restoration of normal strength, especially as full supination is approached. To determine the safest drill trajectory for preventing injury to the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) when repairing the distal biceps tendon to the ANATOMIC footprint through a single-incision anterior approach utilising cortical button fixation. Through an anterior approach in ten cadaveric specimens, three drill holes were made in the radial tuberosity from the centre of the anatomic footprint with the forearm fully supinated. Holes were made in a 30º distal, transverse and 30º proximal direction. 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 eight-millimetre tunnel. 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 measured for each trajectory. The PIN was closest to the trajectory K-wires drilled 30° distally (mean distance 5.4 mm), contacting the K-wire in three cases. The transverse drill trajectory resulted in contact with the PIN in one case (mean distance 7.6 mm). The proximal drill trajectory appeared safest with no PIN contact (mean distance 13.3 mm). This was statistically significant with a Friedman statistic of 15.05 (p value of 0.00054). When drilling from the anatomic footprint of the distal biceps tendon the PIN is furthest from a drill trajectory aimed proximally. The drill is aimed radially to minimise blowing out the ulnar cortex of the radius. For any reader inquiries, please contact . vansurgdoc@gmail.com


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 9, Issue 4 | Pages 30 - 33
1 Aug 2020


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 9, Issue 3 | Pages 8 - 9
1 Jun 2020


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 9, Issue 3 | Pages 26 - 29
1 Jun 2020


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 8, Issue 4 | Pages 29 - 32
1 Aug 2019


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 8, Issue 2 | Pages 26 - 29
1 Apr 2019


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 7, Issue 6 | Pages 26 - 28
1 Dec 2018