A Visualization of the Distal Biceps Tendon

Ultrasound Assessment of an Isolated Rupture of the Medial Bundle of a Bifid Distal Biceps Tendon

This case study describes a patient with a clinically ruptured distal biceps tendon, with ultrasound detecting an isolated rupture of the medial bundle of a bifid distal biceps tendon. A 45-year-old male presented to the accident and emergency department with a week-old history of a right elbow injury. The ultrasound scan demonstrated a hypoechoic, corrugated distal biceps tendon with a tendon stump close to the radial tuberosity insertion in keeping with a rupture. However, a small caliber accessory or bifid distal biceps tendon was also identified and was intact. Typically, distal biceps tendon ruptures occur following a traumatic event with most detected clinically although imaging is required to confirm the diagnosis. Ultrasound is utilized to assess these injuries, and several different techniques or approaches are described in the literature. A combination of these approaches is required to make an accurate diagnosis. Detection of bifid distal biceps tendons is important for patient management, especially if a surgical repair is considered. This case highlights the anatomical variant of a bifid distal biceps tendon, which was ruptured clinically. The ultrasound diagnosis of distal biceps tendon ruptures can be challenging, especially when there is limited tendon retraction. This case also demonstrated the importance of dynamic ultrasound in the assessment of tendon ruptures.

Distal biceps tendon injection

Background

Injection therapy around the distal biceps tendon insertion is challenging. This therapy may be indicated in patients with a partial distal biceps tendon tear, bicipitoradial bursitis and tendinopathy. The primary goal of this study was to determine the accuracy of manually performed injections without ultrasound guidance around the biceps tendon.

Methods

Seven upper limb specialists, two general orthopedic specialists, and three orthopedic surgical residents manually injected a cadaver elbow with acrylic dye using an anterior and a lateral infiltration approach. After infiltration the cadaveric elbows were dissected to determine the location of the acrylic dye.

Results

In total, 79% of the injections were localized near the biceps tendon. Of these injections, 20% were localized on the radius near the bicipitoradial bursa. In total, 53% of the performed infiltrations were injected by anterior and 47% by lateral approaches. Of the injections near the distal biceps (79%), 47% were injected by an anterior and 53% by a lateral approach. Of the injections on the radius (20%), 33% were injected by anterior and 67% by lateral approach. Of the inaccurate injections (21%), 75% were injected anterior and 25% lateral.

Conclusions

Manual infiltration without ultrasound guidance for distal biceps pathology lacks accuracy. We therefore recommend ultrasound guidance for more accurate infiltration.

High-resolution ultrasound in the assessment of the distal biceps brachii tendinous complex

OBJECTIVE

To establish a high-resolution US technique that enables a systematic morphometric examination of the three components that form the distal biceps brachii tendinous complex; the internal bicipital aponeurosis, the distal biceps brachii tendon and the external bicipital aponeurosis (also known as lacertus fibrosus).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty cryopreserved cadaver body donor elbows were dissected to obtain morphometric reference values and to establish reliable landmarks for the US examination. Then, a systematic US technique was designed and validated by a one-to-one US/dissection analysis of 11 cryopreserved cadaver body donor elbows. Finally, the systematic US technique was carried out in 44 healthy volunteers and morphometric parameters were compared to those obtained in the first part of the study.

RESULTS

Mean dissection reference values: internal bicipital aponeurosis width 39.61 mm (10.02 SD) and thickness 0.75 mm (0.24 SD), distal biceps brachii tendon width 8.38 mm (1.87 SD) and thickness 2.73 mm (0.69 SD), external bicipital aponeurosis width 11.17 mm (5.84 SD) and thickness 0.85 mm (0.28 SD). One-to-one US/dissection correlation was overall good (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.876, p < 0.0001). When comparing volunteer US/dissection measurements, significant differences were encountered in all measures except for internal bicipital aponeurosis width. However, the overall magnitude of such significant differences was < 0.7 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the systematics hereby proposed, high-resolution US is reliable for the morphometric assessment of the distal biceps brachii tendinous complex. The external bicipital aponeurosis is morphometrically the most variable structure.

Functional outcome in patients who underwent distal biceps tendon repair

INTRODUCTION

To asses physical function and quality of life after distal biceps tendon repair and compare suture anchor and cortical button fixation. Secondarily, we assessed the impact of other factors: acute repair, graft use, concomitant arm conditions, contralateral rupture, and complications.

METHODS

We approached all 50 patients that underwent distal biceps tendon rupture repair (2009-2016) to participate in our study and complete a questionnaire including: patient demographics, QuickDASH, Quality of life EQ-5D-5L, pain score, and Mayo Elbow Performance score (MEPS).

RESULTS

In total, 37 (76%) of 49 alive patients participated in our study. All were men, with a median age of 47 years. Median follow-up was 34 months (range 8-100 months). On average, we found perfect upper extremity (QuickDASH, median: 0, IQR 0-7.9; 53% had no [QuickDASH = 0] upper extremity disability) and elbow function (MEPS, median: 100, IQR 100-100; 83% had perfect [MEPS > 90] clinical elbow function), perfect quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, median: 1, IQR 0.85-1; 59% had perfect [EQ-5D-5L = 1] quality of life), and no pain (median 0, IQR 0-0; 68% had no pain). We found no difference in upper extremity (QuickDASH: anchor, median 1.1, IQR 0-6.8; endobutton, median 0, IQR 0-9.1, p = 0.972) and elbow (MEPS: anchor, median 100, IQR 100-100; endobutton, median 100, IQR 100-100, p = 0.895) function, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L: anchor, median 1, IQR 0.85-1; endobutton, median 1, IQR 0.84-1, p = 0.507), and pain score (anchor, median 0, IQR 0-0.5; endobutton, median 0, IQR 0-0, p = 0.742) when comparing the anchor to endobutton fixation technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patients have excellent outcome after distal biceps tendon rupture repair. There was no difference in patient-reported outcome measures between suture anchor and endobutton fixation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.