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

Aims

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to gather epidemiological information on selected musculoskeletal injuries and to provide pooled injury-specific incidence rates.

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

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.

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

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.

The February 2014 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether arthroscopic acromioplasty is a cost-effective intervention; shockwave therapy in cuff tear; whether microfracture relieves short-term pain in cuff repair; the promising early results from L-PRF augmented cuff repairs; rehabilitation following cuff repair; supination strength following biceps tendon rupture; whether longer is better in humeral components; fatty degeneration in a rodent model; and the controversial acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

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.