Avoiding the posterior interosseous nerve during 2-incision distal biceps tendon repair: an anatomic study

BACKGROUND

The posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) is the most commonly injured motor nerve during distal biceps tendon repair resulting in severe functional deficits. Anatomic studies of distal biceps tendon repairs have evaluated the proximity of the PIN to the anterior radial shaft in supination, but limited studies have evaluated the location of the PIN in relation to the radial tuberosity (RT), and none have examined its relation to the subcutaneous border of the ulna (SBU) with varying forearm rotation. This study evaluates the location of the PIN in relation to the RT and SBU to help guide surgeons in safe placement of the dorsal incision and the safest zones of dissection.

METHODS

The PIN was dissected from arcade of Frohse to 2 cm distal to the RT in 18 cadaver specimens. Four lines were drawn perpendicular to the radial shaft at the proximal, middle, and distal aspect of and 1 cm distal to the RT in the lateral view. Measurements were recorded with a digital caliper along these lines to quantify the distance between the SBU and RT to the PIN with the forearm in neutral, supination, and pronation with the elbow at 90° flexion. Measurements were also made along the length of the radius at the volar, middle, and dorsal surfaces at the distal aspect of the RT to assess its proximity to the PIN.

RESULTS

Mean distances to the PIN were greater in pronation than supination and neutral. The PIN crossed the volar surface of the distal aspect of the RT -6.9 ± 4.3 mm (-13, -3.0) in supination, -0.4 ± 5.8 mm (-9.9, 2.5) in neutral, and 8.5 ± 9.9 mm (-2.7, 13) in pronation. One centimeter distal to the RT, mean distance to the PIN was 0.54 ± 4.3 mm (-4.5, 8.8) in supination, 8.5 ± 3.1 mm (3.2, 14) in neutral, and 10 ± 2.7 mm (4.9, 16) in pronation. In pronation, mean distances from the SBU to the PIN at points A, B, C, and D were 41.3 ± 4.2, 38.1 ± 4.4, 34.9 ± 4.2, and 30.8 ± 3.9 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

PIN location is quite variable, and to avoid iatrogenic injury during 2-incision distal biceps tendon repair, we recommend placement of the dorsal incision no more than 25 mm anterior to the SBU and carrying out deep dissection proximally first to identify the RT before continuing the dissection distally to expose the tendon footprint. The PIN was at risk of injury along the volar surface at the distal aspect of the RT in 50% with neutral rotation and 17% with full pronation.

Bicortical suspensory button fixation yields greater ultimate load to failure over unicortical all-suture anchor fixation in distal biceps brachii tendon repair

BACKGROUND

Various distal biceps tendon repair techniques exist, each with their own biomechanical profile. Recently, all-suture anchor fixation has recently become an intriguing option for distal biceps fixation, compared with the proven track record of the suspensory cortical button. In addition, intramedullary techniques have been utilized as a means to avoid complications such as nerve damage seen with extramedullary fixation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to perform a comparative biomechanical analysis of 4 unique distal biceps tendon fixation methods: Unicortical/intramedullary all-suture anchor fixation (UIAS), Bicortical/extramedullary all-suture anchor fixation (BEAS), Unicortical/intramedullary suspensory button fixation (UISB), and Bicortical/extramedullary suspensory button fixation (BESB).

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled Laboratory study.

METHODS

24 fresh-frozen cadaveric elbows were randomized into 4 groups providing data from 6 specimens, with each group undergoing a different repair technique. The specimens underwent 2 studies: Cyclic loading and Ultimate Load to failure (ULTF) testing. The repaired elbows were cycled 3000 times between 0 and 90 degrees of flexion, with displacement under cyclic loading at the repair site measured using a differential variable reductance transducer. ULTF test was performed with the elbow flexed at 90 degrees. The modes of failure were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean cyclic displacements between the 4 groups were as follows: UIAS: 1.45 ± 1.04 mm; BEAS: 2.75 ± 1.32 mm; UISB: 1.45 ± .776 mm; BESB: 2.66 ± 1.18 mm (p= 0.077). Bicortical repairs displayed greater displacement after cyclic loading when compared with unicortical repairs regardless of anchor used (p= 0.007). The mean ULTF for each group was as follows: all-suture intramedullary: 200 N; all-suture extramedullary: 330 N; cortical-button intramedullary: 256 N; cortical-button extramedullary: 342 N). All-suture unicortical/intramedullary repair had a significantly lower ULTF (200 N) compared with cortical-button Bicortical/extramedullary repair (342 N) (p=0.043).

CONCLUSION

Bicortical/extramedullary suspensory button fixation demonstrated a greater ultimate load to failure when compared with unicortical/intramedullary all-suture anchor fixation. These findings suggest that bicortical/extramedullary suspensory cortical button fixation is a biomechanically superior construct as compared to unicortical/intramedullary all-suture anchor fixation. However, there was no significant difference in ULTF between extra-medullary, Bicortical button or Bicortical, all-suture anchor fixation.

Determining the incidence and risk factors for short-term complications following distal biceps tendon repair

Background

Distal biceps rupture is a relatively uncommon injury that can significantly affect quality of life. Early complications following biceps tendon repair are not well described in the literature. This study utilizes a national surgical database to determine the incidence of and predictors for short-term complications following distal biceps tendon repair.

Methods

The American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify patients undergoing distal biceps repair between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. Patient demographic variables of sex, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, functional status, and several comorbidities were collected for each patient, along with 30-day postoperative complications. Binary logistic regression was used to calculate risk ratios for these complications using patient predictor variables.

Results

Early postoperative surgical complications (0.5%)—which were mostly infections (0.4%)—and medical complications (0.3%) were rare. A readmission risk factor was diabetes (risk ratio [RR], 4.238; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.180–15.218). Non-home discharge risk factors were smoking (RR, 3.006; 95% CI, 1.123–8.044) and ≥60 years of age (RR, 4.150; 95% CI, 1.611– 10.686). Maleness was protective for medical complications (RR, 0.024; 95% CI, 0.005–0.126). Surgical complication risk factors were obese class II (RR, 4.120; 95% CI, 1.123–15.120), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; RR, 21.981; 95% CI, 3.719–129.924), and inpatient surgery (RR, 8.606; 95% CI, 2.266–32.689).

Conclusions

Complication rates after distal biceps repair are low. Various patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and surgical factors were all predictive of short-term complications.

Evaluation of factors influencing surgical treatment costs for distal biceps rupture

BACKGROUND

Given the similar outcomes of various fixation constructs for single-incision distal biceps repair, a critical evaluation of the factors that drive the cost of the procedure is the key to optimizing treatment value. The purpose of this study was to quantify variation in costs for surgical treatment of complete distal biceps ruptures, as well as identify factors affecting costs.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified adult patients consecutively treated surgically for complete distal biceps ruptures between July 2011 and January 2018 at a single academic medical center. Using our institution's information technology value tool, we recorded the surgical encounter total direct costs (SETDCs) for each patient. Univariate and multivariate gamma regression models were used to determine factors affecting SETDCs.

RESULTS

Of 121 included patients, 102 (86%), 7 (6%), and 12 (10%) underwent primary repair, revision, and reconstruction. SETDCs varied widely, with a standard deviation of 40% and a range of 58% to 276% of the average SETDC. The main contributors to SETDCs were facility utilization costs (53%) and implant costs (29%). Implant costs also varied, with a standard deviation of 16%, ranging up to 121% of the mean SETDC. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that reconstructions were 72% more costly than primary repairs (P < .001). No significant cost differences were found between cortical button and dual-suture anchor fixation (P = .058). American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index, revision surgery, time to surgery, location, administration of postoperative block, and surgeon performing the procedure did not significantly affect the SETDC.

CONCLUSION

Surgical encounter and implant costs vary widely for distal biceps rupture treatment. However, no significant difference in SETDC was identified between repair with a cortical button vs. dual-suture anchor repair. The greater costs associated with reconstruction surgery should be taken into consideration.

No functional differences in anatomic reconstruction with one vs. two suture anchors after non-simultaneous bilateral distal biceps brachii tendon rupture: a case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Surgical reattachment of the tendon is still the gold standard for ruptures of the distal biceps brachii tendon. Several fixation techniques have been described in the literature, with suture anchors being one of the most common fixation techniques. Currently, there is no data available on how many anchors are required for a safe and stable refixation. In this case report clinical data of a patient with non-simultaneous bilateral distal biceps tendon ruptures treated with a different number of suture anchors for each side (one vs. two) are demonstrated.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 47-year-old factory worker suffered a rupture of the distal biceps tendon on both arms following two different occasions. The left side was fixed using a single suture anchor, while refixation on the right side was performed with two anchors. The patient was prospectively followed for one year. Functional outcome was assessed using the Andrews Carson Score (ACS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Score after six, twelve, 24 and 48 weeks. Furthermore, an isokinetic strength measurement for flexion strength was performed after 24 and 48 weeks. After 48 weeks the patient presented with excellent functional outcome scores and no follow-up complications. During the follow-up period, no differences in the functional scores nor in the isokinetic flexion strength measurement could be detected. Furthermore, no radiological complications (like heterotopic ossifications) could be detected in the postoperative radiographs after one year.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomic reattachment of the distal biceps tendon is a successful operative treatment option for distal biceps tendon ruptures. Suture anchor fixation remains one of the most common techniques, as it allows fast surgery and provides good results with respect to range of motion (ROM) and functional scoring according to the current literature. However, the number of anchors required for a stable fixation remains unclear. As indicated by our presented case, we hypothesize, that there are no significant differences between a one-point or a two-point fixation. In the presented case report, no intraindividual differences between the usage of one versus two suture anchors were evident in the short-term follow-up.

Primary repair of retracted distal biceps tendon ruptures in extreme flexion

BACKGROUND

Distal biceps tendon ruptures may have tendinous retraction, making primary repair difficult and calling into question the need for graft reconstruction. The decision for when to primarily fix or augment high-flexion repairs has not been addressed. We hypothesized high-flexion repairs would have good outcomes without graft augmentation. The purpose of this study was to examine allograft use and outcomes of distal biceps tendon ruptures requiring repair in greater than 60° of flexion.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study 188 distal biceps tendon repairs; of these, 19 chronic and 4 acute cases were identified with repairs of >60° of flexion using a 2-incision technique. Graft need, complications, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score to assess function, were examined with a record review. Patients were surveyed regarding return to work and subjective satisfaction. A control group matched for surgeon, chronicity, and age, but without a high-flexion repair, was compared with cases by using the Student paired t test.

RESULTS

Graft augmentation was used in 1 patient with poor tendon quality. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 100 for all 23 patients, with extension/flexion range of motion from 3° to 138°. All were subjectively "very satisfied/satisfied," with full work return, yet 3 reported mild fatigability. There were 4 complications: 3 transient lateral antebrachial cutaneous neurapraxias and 1 rerupture at the myotendinous junction after retrauma. Differences between cases and controls were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Contracted distal biceps tendons may be reliably reattached to their anatomic insertion with up to 90° of elbow flexion. This lessens the need for reconstruction in such circumstances.