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

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

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