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

This is largest collection of outcomes of distal biceps reconstruction in the literature. 8 subjects prospectively measured pre and post reconstruction Strength deficit in patients with chronic tendon deficit is described. To describe outcomes for 53 chronic distal biceps reconstructions with tendon graft. Clinical outcomes as well as strength and endurance in supination and flexion are reported. To examine eight patients measured pre- and post-reconstruction. To identify deficit in supination and flexion in chronic reconstruction. 53 reconstructions of chronic distal biceps with tendon graft were carried out between 1999 and 2015. 26 subjects agreed to undergo strength testing after minimum one year follow up. Eight subjects were tested both before and after reconstruction. Primary outcomes were strength in elbow flexion and forearm supination. Strength testing of supination and flexion included maximum isokinetic power and endurance performed on a Biodex. Clinical outcomes measures included pre-operative retraction severity, surgical fixation technique, postoperative contour, range of motion, subjective satisfaction, SF-12, DASH, MAYO elbow score, ASES and pain VAS Non-parametric data was reported as median (interquartile range), while normally-distributed data was reported as mean with 95% Confidence Limits. Hypothesis testing was performed according to two-tailed, paired t-tests. Median time from index rupture to reconstructions 9.5 (range 3–108) months. Strength measurements were completed at a median follow-up time of 29 (range 12–137) months on 26 subjects. The proportion of patients that achieved 90% strength of the contralateral limb post-reconstruction was 65% (17/26) for peak supination torque, and 62% (16/26) for peak flexion torque. Supination and flexion endurance was 90% of the contralateral arm in 81% (21/26) and 65% (17/26) of subjects, respectively. Ten subjects (39%) achieved 90% strength of the contralateral arm on at least four of five strength tests. Eight of the 26 patients were evaluated pre- and post-surgery. As compared to the contralateral limb, chronic distal biceps rupture was found to have a mean [95%CI] deficit in peak supination torque of 31.0 [21.0, 42.9]% (p=0.002). Mean deficit in peak flexion torque of 34.2 [23.1, 45.4]% (p <0.001). Reconstruction resulted in an increase in peak supination torque of 33.5 [8.7, 58.3]% (p=0.0162), increase in peak flexion torque of 35.0 [6.4, 63.6]% (p=0.023), increase in isometric strength of 57.6 [36.1, 79.1]% (p<0.001), increase in supination endurance of 0.6 [-22.2, 23.4]% (p=0.668), and a decrease in flexion endurance of 4.8 [-23.3, 13.7](p=0.478). Ninety-six percent of the patients (25/26) were satisfied, or very satisfied with the overall outcome of the surgery, while median Mayo score post-reconstruction was 100 (range: 55–100). Chronic distal biceps tendon rupture results in less supination loss and greater flexion loss than previously reported. Reconstruction with tendon graft results in a significant, but incomplete recovery of peak supination and flexion torque, but no significant change in endurance. Clinical patient satisfaction with surgical outcomes is high

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

Distal biceps tendon ruptures are uncommon with a reported incidence of 1.24 per 100,000 per year. They typically occur in males in the fourth decade. Operative treatment has been shown to improve functional outcomes in the treatment of distal biceps tendon ruptures. A variety of surgical techniques have been described, usually using the dual incision Boyd-Anderson approach. We report a series of 10 patients with 10 tendon ruptures treated using a single incision volar approach and using the Arthrex Biotenodesis screw to reattach the tendon to the radial tuberosity. This method has been previously described in only one case report. All ten patients underwent clinical assessment using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and functional assessment using the DASH scoring system. The power was assessed isokinetically using the Nottingham Myometer. Based on the MEPS and DASH grading system all patients achieved a good or excellent result. In our experience reattachment of the distal biceps tendon using a single incision approach and Arthrex Biotenodesis screw is a new technique which gives a good functional outcome

Introduction. Acute distal biceps rupture can be a devastating injury and surgical repair offers the only real chance of full recovery. We report on a new surgical technique in which the use of suture anchors and a modified de-tensioning suture was employed to protect the repair in the early post operative recovery period and aid early rehabilitation and return to full pre-injury activity. Materials & Methods. Using the standard anterior incision the distal biceps tendon was approximated to the radial tuberosity using two Mitek sutures and a sliding stitch. Using 2-0 Vicryl, de-tensioning sutures were used to attach the medial and lateral sides of the tendon to the underlying brachialis muscle. Post-operative recovery encouraged isometric contractions as early as 24 hours and after 2 weeks allowed flexion and extension with gravity eliminated. Six weeks onwards full active movement commenced with gradual increase in stretching and strengthening exercise. Results. 14 patients underwent this procedure and all returned to pre-injury activity levels within 9 months. Follow up (6–14 months) demonstrated all had regained pre-injury levels of strength in flexion and supination. Discussion. Using two suture anchors, it is suggested that load bearing strength is greater than the trans-osseous method, providing even tension is applied to both anchors. This can be achieved using a sliding stitch. De-tensioning sutures restore the isometric pull on biceps in the early phase and protects the repair. Conclusion. All cases operated on in this way have made excellent recoveries and have returned to full pre-injury levels of activity. We therefore recommend this technique as a way of enhancing rehabilitation in what can be a devastating injury for the active sporting individual

PURPOSE: We describe the results of 64 patients who underwent treatment for acute distal biceps tendon rupture using a single incision and suture anchors. The purpose of the study is to evaluate if this method is reliable and if it can reduse the risk of ectopic bone formation or synostosis. Methods: 64 patients underwent surgical repair for acute rupture of the distal biceps tendon, using suture anchors and a single incision. All performed by 1 surgeon. We had 63 male and 1 female with a mean age of 48 years (range 30–59). Our operative technique consisted of an “S”-shaped anterior incision centered over the antecubital fossa. After identification and protection of the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve, we exposed and mobilized the ruptured biceps tendon. The distal portion of the tendon was debrided and the radial tuberosity gently decorticated. A 4 stranded suture was then inserted into the tuberosity. The tendon was advanced to bone and the sutures were tied using the modification of Kessler’s technique, holding the elbow in 90° of flexion. The post-op protocol was a posterior splint for 10 days (in 90° of flexion and 20° of supination), a dynamic hinged-extension block brace in 45° for 3 weeks and progressive advancement to full extension in 3 more weeks. Strengthening exercises were permitted after 3 months. Results: All acute tears (< 3 weeks) were repaired anatomically. The follow-up period was 39 months (range 18m – 11years). Objective data consisted of ROM (range of motion) of the elbow, flexion and supination strength were measured by a BTE Work Stimulator. The ROM was normal in 54 patients, 10 patients lacked 10° of extension. 51 patients returned to their pre-injury level of activity and within 6 months returned to work. All patients reported pain relief and good recovery of strength and were completely satisfied of the outcome. There were no implant failures, nerve palsies or heterotopic bone formation. Conclusions: Use of a single incision repair with bone suture anchors provides secure fixation of distal biceps tendon to the radius with minimal volar dissection wich is associated with a minimum risk of synostosis and posterior interosseous nerve injuries. This method is reliable for acute ruptures. Return to normal strength and range of motion can be expected if tendon repair is performed before 3 weeks. The advantages of this method are less dissection for re-attachment of the tendon, less nerve injuries and no ectopic bone formation or synostosis

The clinical results of acute repair rupture of the biceps tendon insertion using a two incision Boyd Anderson approach in four patients are described.

Four patients underwent acute biceps tendon repair using the Boyd Anderson approach and the tendon was secured to its anatomical insertion using a number 5 non-absorbable suture. One patient was immobilised in the postoperative period and the subsequent patients were allowed early mobilisation supervised by the physiotherapist.

All patients were male and surgery was performed within three weeks of the injury. Two patients sustained injury playing rugby, one was injured lifting a bag of coal and one was injured lifting a motorised Go Kart. In all four cases the tendon was found to be avulsed from its bony insertion rather than ruptured in it’s mid substance or musculo-tendinous junction.

There were no problems with wound break down or discomfort. The patient who was immobilised took longer to regain full range of extension, pronation and supination. All patients returned to the pre-injury employment, sporting and social levels.

Our results suggest that early two incision approach and repair is associated with good functional outcome and minimal morbidity in the post operative phase.

Introduction and Aims: Distal biceps ruptures are an uncommon injury. They represent approximately three percent of all biceps ruptures. Intervention was popularised by Boyd and Anderson who described a two-incision technique. Improved outcome has been achieved with stronger fixation allowing early mobilisation. Method: All patients who underwent operative fixation of distal biceps ruptures by the senior two authors were identified. All patients were clinically reviewed at a minimum of six months from surgery. Functional outcomes scores in the form of Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) and DASH scores were assessed. The operative technique utilised the Endobutton (Smith and Nephew) and is a substantial modification of that published by Bain,G et al. Results: Thirty-one patients were identified. All patients were male with an average age of 47 years. Average delay to surgery was 24 days. There were no postoperative complications and no repeat ruptures. Thirty patients have returned Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE) forms with an average score of eight. Cybex testing demonstrates good return of strength when compared to the uninjured side. Conclusion: Fixation of distal biceps ruptures using this modified Endobutton technique is a safe and effective method

Compared to single-incision distal biceps repair (SI), double-incision repair (DI) theoretically allows for reattachment of the tendon to a more anatomically favorable position. We hypothesized that DI repair would result in greater terminal supination torque compared to SI repair for acute distal biceps ruptures. In this retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they sustained an isolated, acute (° supinated position. Secondary outcomes included supination torque in 45° supinated, neutral, and 45° pronated positions, ASES elbow score, DASH, SF-12, and VAS. Power analysis revealed that at least 32 patients were needed to detect a minimum 15% difference in the primary outcome (β = 0.20). Statistical analysis was performed with significance level α = 0.05 using R version 3.4.1 (R Core Team 2017, Vienna, Austria). Of 53 eligible patients, 37 consented to participate. Fifteen were repaired using DI technique and 22 using SI technique. Mean age was 47.3yrs and median follow-up time was 28.1months. The groups did not differ with respect to age, time-to-follow-up, dominance of arm affected, Workers Compensation or smoking status. Mean supination torque, measured as the percentage of the unaffected side, was 60.9% (95%CI 45.1–76.7) for DI repair versus 80.4% (95%CI 69.1–91.7) for SI repair at the 60°supinated position (p=0.036). There were no statistically significant differences in mean supination torque at the 45°supinated position: 67.1% (95%CI 49.4–84.7) for DI versus 81.8% (95%CI 72.2–91.4) for SI (p=0.102), at the neutral position: 88.8% (95%CI 75.2–102.4) for DI versus 97.6% (95%CI 91.6–103.7) for SI (p=0.0.170), and at the 45°pronated position: 104.5% (95%CI 91.1–117.9) for DI versus 103.4 (95%CI 97.2–109.6) for SI (p=0.0.862). No statistically significant differences were detected in the secondary outcomes ASES Pain, ASES Function, DASH scores, SF-12 PCS or MCS, or VAS Pain. A small difference was detected in VAS Function (median 1.3 for DI repair versus 0.5 for SI repair, p=0.023). In a multivariate linear regression model controlling for arm dominance, age, and follow-up time, SI repair was associated with a greater mean supination torque than DI repair by 19.6% at the 60°supinated position (p=0.011). Contrary to our hypothesis, we found approximately a 20% mean improvement in terminal supination torque for acute distal biceps ruptures repaired with the single-incision technique compared to the double-incision technique. Patients uniformly did well with either technique, though we contend that this finding may have clinical significance for the more discerning, high-demand patient

Compared to single-incision distal biceps repair (SI), double-incision repair (DI) theoretically allows for reattachment of the tendon to a more anatomically favorable position. We hypothesized that DI repair would result in greater terminal supination torque compared to SI repair for acute distal biceps ruptures. In this retrospective cohort study, patients were included if they sustained an isolated, acute (° supinated position. Secondary outcomes included supination torque in 45° supinated, neutral, and 45° pronated positions, ASES elbow score, DASH, SF-12, and VAS. Power analysis revealed that at least 32 patients were needed to detect a minimum 15% difference in the primary outcome (β = 0.20). Statistical analysis was performed with significance level α = 0.05 using R version 3.4.1 (R Core Team 2017, Vienna, Austria). Of 53 eligible patients, 37 consented to participate. Fifteen were repaired using DI technique and 22 using SI technique. Mean age was 47.3yrs and median follow-up time was 28.1months. The groups did not differ with respect to age, time-to-follow-up, dominance of arm affected, Workers Compensation or smoking status. Mean supination torque, measured as the percentage of the unaffected side, was 60.9% (95%CI 45.1–76.7) for DI repair versus 80.4% (95%CI 69.1–91.7) for SI repair at the 60°supinated position (p=0.036). There were no statistically significant differences in mean supination torque at the 45°supinated position: 67.1% (95%CI 49.4–84.7) for DI versus 81.8% (95%CI 72.2–91.4) for SI (p=0.102), at the neutral position: 88.8% (95%CI 75.2–102.4) for DI versus 97.6% (95%CI 91.6–103.7) for SI (p=0.0.170), and at the 45°pronated position: 104.5% (95%CI 91.1–117.9) for DI versus 103.4 (95%CI 97.2–109.6) for SI (p=0.0.862). No statistically significant differences were detected in the secondary outcomes ASES Pain, ASES Function, DASH scores, SF-12 PCS or MCS, or VAS Pain. A small difference was detected in VAS Function (median 1.3 for DI repair versus 0.5 for SI repair, p=0.023). In a multivariate linear regression model controlling for arm dominance, age, and follow-up time, SI repair was associated with a greater mean supination torque than DI repair by 19.6% at the 60°supinated position (p=0.011). Contrary to our hypothesis, we found approximately a 20% mean improvement in terminal supination torque for acute distal biceps ruptures repaired with the single-incision technique compared to the double-incision technique. Patients uniformly did well with either technique, though we contend that this finding may have clinical significance for the more discerning, high-demand patient

Repair of distal biceps tendon rupture is a subject that has received increasing attention in the past decade. In the active individual who desires as close to normal function as possible, repair of biceps tendon is recommended. The author describes a tehnique with a single anterior incision and fixation with superanchors. This method was successfully used in 25 patients with excellent functional results. There were no failures and no complications of neurological injury. The single anterior incision approach in which superanchors are used is recommended as an alternative to the traditional two-incision method. The Biceps brachii is an important flexor of the elbow and is the main supinator of the forearm. Avulsion of its distal tendon insertion is rare injury that mostly affects middle-aged men. It represents only 3% of all biceps tendon ruptures. There is an average of 1.24 spontaneous complete distal biceps ruptures per 100,000 people per year. The decline in the number of distal biceps tendon ruptures with increasing age correlates with a decrease in at-risk activities after the fourth decade of life. Decreased vascularity, tendon impingement, degenerative changes of the distal biceps tendon and the use of anabolic steroids have been postulated to predispose to tendon rupture. Our study shows that repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures using superanchors is safe and gives clinically objective and functional results similar to bone tunnel fixation. We had no major complications, no suture anchor failures and no occurrence of synostosis and neurological injuries. We recommend the use of superanchors for the treatment of distal biceps tendon ruptures

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

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

Introduction: When possible direct repair of the chronic distal biceps tendon ruptures is recommended because the results of chronic repairs with grafts have traditionally not been as successful. Some key surgical tips will allow successful direct repair as it is noted in our series. Material and Methods: Sixteen males with a chronic (6–14 weeks post injury) distal biceps rupture were repaired with the one-incision technique and 2 suture anchors. Average follow-up was 38 (range, 23–48) months. Involved arm was the dominant in 14 patients. The patients were assessed with the DASH questionnaire, goniometric range of motion and isokinetic strength testing of elbow flexion and supination. The position of the suture anchors was also evaluated radiographically. Surgical tips: 1) release adhesions between biceps and brachiallis, 2) release the bicipital aponeurosis, 3) “tease” the retracted tendon out of scar, 4) release the superficial biceps fascia and place relaxing incisions in the epimysium, 5) apply a surgical clamp to the end of the tendon and pull distally for 10–20 minutes. Note that the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve is frequently entrapped in scar and requires neurolysis. Results: All patients regained almost normal flexion and supination strength, with a deficit of 12% and 15% respectively, compared with the uninvolved arm. Six patients had an average loss of extension of 120 (range, 50–180). According to the DASH test all patients had an excellent/good result (12 excellent, 4 good). X-rays revealed unchanged position of the anchors. No complications were noted. Discussion-Conclusions: The use of flexor carpiradialis and of fascia lata that was used in several studies for repair of chronic distal biceps tendon ruptures has given controversial results mainly due to enlongation and inferior strength of the graft. Based on our results we believe that chronic (6–14 weeks post injury) distal biceps tendon ruptures can be successfully repaired through an anterior approach with direct repair and the use of suture anchors, avoiding the use of a graft

Distal biceps tendon rupture can lead, if left untreated, to substantial and appreciated decline of elbow flexion and forearm supination strength. In chronic cases (seen more than 6 weeks after injury) retraction of the muscle can render reattachment of the tendon to the bicipital tuberosity impossible. In this setting non-anatomic attachment of the biceps to the underlying brachialis is usually elected but this is not suitable for patients with high functional demands. Eight male patients (mean age 40 years, range 30–52 years) with chronic distal biceps ruptures (mean time from injury 28 weeks, range 12–38 weeks) underwent distal biceps reconstruction. Five patients presented with pain and weakness during elbow loading (four with lateral antebrachial cutaneus (LAC) nerve distribution dysesthesias) and three with weakness alone. Indications for distal biceps reconstruction were a) inability to approximate the tendon stump to the bicipital tuberosity with the elbow in less than 700 of flexion after relaxing incisions to the epimysium were made and b) high functional demands in pronosupination in the patients occupation or recreational activities. In the first patient in this series autologous fascia latta was used for reconstruction and in the seven subsequent patients an Achilles tendon allograft. Through an one-incision anterior approach the graft was secured to the biceps remnant and was attached to the bicipital tuberosity using suture anchors. The mean follow up was 32 months (range 14–48 months). All patients were pain free and had returned to their previous occupation. Mean elbow flexion was 145 deg with an extension deficit of 10 deg observed in only one patient. The mean pronosupination was 170 deg. All patients had 5/5 strength of elbow flexion and supination on manual testing. Subjective weakness in supination was reported by one patient. The mean supination strength (tested using a BTE Work Simulator) was 87% of the contrallateral healthy extremity. Seven achieved an excellent and one a good rating in the Mayo elbow performance score. No complications were encountered. Distal biceps reconstruction with Achilles tendon allograft using a one incision technique and suture anchors for reattachment provides an excellent alternative to non- anatomic repair in patients with a chronic retracted distal biceps rupture. Patients involved in activities that require strength in supination are most likely to benefit from this reconstruction

Introduction and Aims: Chronic distal biceps tendon ruptures have traditionally been treated with a biceps to brachialis tenodesis. The use of a semitendinosus autograft to reconstruct the distal biceps tendon for chronic rupture has been described. This study evaluates the functional outcome of a group of patients treated with autograft reconstruction. Method: This retrospective study identified six patients who underwent a late reconstruction of a biceps tendon rupture using a semitendinosis autograft. Functional outcome was evaluated objectively and subjectively. Clinical subjective evaluation included the MAYO elbow score and the outcome questionnaire from the Society of Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (SSES). Objective outcomes were assessed by measurement of peak torque for both elbow flexion and supination using a Cybex II Isokinetic machine. Comparisons were made with the opposite limb. Results: Six right-handed male patients aged 42±7 yrs (range 34–48 yrs) were evaluated in this study, five of which achieved a good to excellent MAYO performance score (average 87 ±12), and SSES score (average 86±21). Peak torque obtained during maximal elbow flexion was 44±17 Nm (vs. 55 ±16 Nm opposite elbow) during supination was 8±4Nm (vs. 10±2Nm opposite elbow). Conclusion: This study represents a series of patients with autograft reconstruction of the chronic distal biceps rupture. It is the first study to quantitatively measure the recovery of strength of elbow flexion and supination. The semitendinosus autograft provides a strong and reliable reconstructive option in the majority of patients with chronic biceps tendon ruptures. Recovery of elbow flexion and supination power is nearly normal

Introduction: Currently the standard of care is to repair distal biceps tendon ruptures, particularly in active individuals. Although several studies have reported short-term good results with the one-incision technique none has report long-term results. Material and Methods: Thirty- four male with distal biceps rupture were treated with an average follow-up of 5 (range,2–9) years. Involved arm was dominant in 28 patients. 22 ruptures were repaired acutely (less than 6 weeks from injury) and 12 had a late repair. The patients were assessed with the DASH questionnaire, goniometric range of motion and isokinetic strength testing of elbow flexion and supination. The position of the suture anchors was also evaluated radiographically. Results: Patients with acute repair (82%) regained excellent flexion and supination strength, 108% and 99% respectively, compared with the uninvolved (usually nondominant) arm. Patients (18%) with chronic rupture repair had a slight deficit of supination (15%) and flexion (13%) strength. An average of 120 (range, 00–180) lack of extension was noted in the chronic tears while flexion/extension arc of the acute repairs was normal. With the exception of 4(12%) patients who returned to lighter work activities all patients return to their previous occupation. According to the DASH test all patients had an excellent/good result (28 excellent 6 good). X-rays revealed unchanged position of the anchors. No complications were noted. Discussion-Conclusions: As in short-term results, long-term results of distal biceps tendon repair with the one-incision technique have an excellent result with no clinical or radiographic sign of suture anchors repair insufficiency

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

Our study aims to demonstrate the efficacy of using endobutton and interference screw technique in the repair of acute distal biceps ruptures. From April 2009 to May 2013, 25 consecutive patients had acute distal biceps tendon repairs using an endobutton and interference screw technique. 3 patients were lost to follow up leaving 22 patients available for review. Mean follow up was 24 months(1–51). All were evaluated using a questionnaire, examination, radiographs, power measurements, and Oxford Elbow and MAYO scores. Overall 95% patients (21/22) felt that their surgery was successful and rated their overall experience as excellent or good. Mean return to work was at 100 days(0–280) and mean postoperative pain relief was 23 days(1–56). 55% returned to sport at their pre-injury level. There was one case (4.5%) of heterotopic calcification with 3 superficial infections(14%). There were no intra or postoperative radial fractures, metalwork failures or metalwork soft tissue irritations. Mean pre-operative Oxford Elbow Scores were 18(6–37) and post operative 43(24–48) (p<0.00001). Mean pre-operative Mayo scores were 48(5–95) and post-operative were 95(80–100)(p<0.00001). Our study supports that distal biceps repairs using the endobutton and interference screw technique appears to lead to high patient satisfaction rates with a relatively early return to function

Our study aims to demonstrate the efficacy of using endobutton and interference screw technique in the repair of acute distal biceps ruptures. From April 2009 to May 2013, 25 consecutive patients had acute distal biceps tendon repairs using an endobutton and interference screw technique. 3 patients were lost to follow up leaving 22 patients for review. Mean follow up was 24 months (1–51). All were evaluated using a questionnaire, examination, radiographs, power measurements, and Oxford Elbow (OES) and MAYO scores. Overall 95% patients (21/22) felt that their surgery was successful and rated their experience as excellent or good. Mean return to work was 100 days (0–280) and mean postoperative pain relief was 23 days (1–56). 55% returned to sport at their pre-injury level. There was one case (4.5%) of heterotopic calcification with 3 superficial infections (14%). There were no intra or postoperative radial fractures, metalwork failures or metalwork soft tissue irritations. Mean pre-operative OES were 18 (6–37) and post operative 43 (24–48) (p < 0.01). Mean pre-operative Mayo scores were 48 (5–95) and post-operative 95 (80–100) (p < 0.01). Our study supports that distal biceps repairs' with endobutton and interference screw technique appears to lead to high patient satisfaction rates with a relatively early return to function