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

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.

We present a review of claims made to the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) by patients with conditions affecting the shoulder and elbow, and identify areas of dissatisfaction and potential improvement. Between 1995 and 2012, the NHSLA recorded 811 claims related to the shoulder and elbow, 581 of which were settled. This comprised 364 shoulder (64%), and 217 elbow (36%) claims. A total of £18.2 million was paid out in settled claims. Overall diagnosis, mismanagement and intra-operative nerve injury were the most common reasons for litigation. The highest cost paid out resulted from claims dealing with incorrect, missed or delayed diagnosis, with just under £6 million paid out overall. Fractures and dislocations around the shoulder and elbow were common injuries in this category. All 11 claims following wrong-site surgery that were settled led to successful payouts.

This study highlights the diagnoses and procedures that need to be treated with particular vigilance. Having an awareness of the areas that lead to litigation in shoulder and elbow surgery will help to reduce inadvertent risks to patients and prevent dissatisfaction and possible litigation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:574–9.

This paper describes the presence of tenodesis effects in normal physiology and explores the uses of operative tenodesis in surgery of the upper limb.

We retrospectively studied the possibility that direct trauma to the biceps muscle might be the cause of poor elbow flexion and supination in 18 consecutive children with birth lesions of the brachial plexus who had delayed or impaired biceps recovery despite neurophysiological evidence of reinnervation. All had good shoulder and hand function at three months of age. Eight recovered a strong biceps after six months, but nine required a pectoralis minor to biceps transfer to augment elbow flexion and supination. One had a delayed but good recovery of the biceps after microsurgical reconstruction of the plexus. All had a clinical ‘pseudotumour’ in the biceps muscle, which was biopsied during pectoralis minor transfer in two patients and showed rupture and degeneration of muscle fibres with a fibro-fatty infiltrate, suggesting previous muscle trauma.

Direct muscle trauma is an uncommon but important cause of delayed or impaired biceps recovery after brachial plexus birth injuries. Surgery to reinnervate the biceps muscle will not work if substantial muscle damage is present when a suitable muscle transfer should be considered.