Distal biceps tendon repair using cortical button with or without interference screw: A comparative study.

IF 1.2 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Spilios Dellis, Nifon K Gkekas, Alexandros Stamatopoulos, Dimitrios Karadaglis, Jagwant Singh
{"title":"Distal biceps tendon repair using cortical button with or without interference screw: A comparative study.","authors":"Spilios Dellis, Nifon K Gkekas, Alexandros Stamatopoulos, Dimitrios Karadaglis, Jagwant Singh","doi":"10.1177/17585732261441889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Distal biceps tendon repair may be performed using cortical button (CB) alone or combined with an interference screw (CBIS), however direct clinical comparison remains limited. We aimed to compare clinical and functional outcomes between these techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with acute distal biceps tendon rupture managed with CB or CBIS were identified from 2019 to 2024 at a single institution. Treatment allocation was based exclusively on surgeon preference, with each of the two operating surgeons consistently using a single technique throughout the study period. Outcomes were recorded at minimum 12 months using Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Q-DASH) and Visual Analogue Scale scores, and patients were assessed for complications and return to activity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-five patients were included (CB <i>n</i> = 27, CBIS <i>n</i> = 28) with similar baseline demographics. Mean follow-up was 21.6 months (CB) and 19.8 months (CBIS). Mean MEPS and Q-DASH scores were 96.3 and 2.8 versus 97.1 and 2.2 respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in any outcome measure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both techniques provided excellent short- to mid-term clinical and functional outcomes. No statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference was detected between groups, though the study may be underpowered to detect small between-group differences. Within the context of surgeon-specific practice patterns, CB fixation alone appears sufficient for routine acute distal biceps tendon repair.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III, retrospective comparative study.</p>","PeriodicalId":36705,"journal":{"name":"Shoulder and Elbow","volume":" ","pages":"17585732261441889"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13096007/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17585732261441889","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Distal biceps tendon repair may be performed using cortical button (CB) alone or combined with an interference screw (CBIS), however direct clinical comparison remains limited. We aimed to compare clinical and functional outcomes between these techniques.

Methods: Patients with acute distal biceps tendon rupture managed with CB or CBIS were identified from 2019 to 2024 at a single institution. Treatment allocation was based exclusively on surgeon preference, with each of the two operating surgeons consistently using a single technique throughout the study period. Outcomes were recorded at minimum 12 months using Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Q-DASH) and Visual Analogue Scale scores, and patients were assessed for complications and return to activity.

Results: Fifty-five patients were included (CB n = 27, CBIS n = 28) with similar baseline demographics. Mean follow-up was 21.6 months (CB) and 19.8 months (CBIS). Mean MEPS and Q-DASH scores were 96.3 and 2.8 versus 97.1 and 2.2 respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in any outcome measure.

Conclusions: Both techniques provided excellent short- to mid-term clinical and functional outcomes. No statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference was detected between groups, though the study may be underpowered to detect small between-group differences. Within the context of surgeon-specific practice patterns, CB fixation alone appears sufficient for routine acute distal biceps tendon repair.

Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

皮质钮扣加或不加干涉螺钉修复肱二头远端肌腱的比较研究。
目的:肱二头肌远端肌腱修复可单独使用皮质钮扣(CB)或联合干涉螺钉(CBIS),但直接的临床比较仍然有限。我们的目的是比较这些技术的临床和功能结果。方法:对2019年至2024年在同一家机构接受CB或CBIS治疗的急性肱二头肌远端肌腱断裂患者进行分析。治疗分配完全基于外科医生的偏好,在整个研究期间,两位手术外科医生中的每一位都始终使用单一技术。使用Mayo肘部功能评分(MEPS)、手臂、肩膀和手的快速残疾(Q-DASH)和视觉模拟量表评分记录至少12个月的结果,并评估患者的并发症和恢复活动情况。结果:纳入55例基线人口统计学相似的患者(CB n = 27, CBIS n = 28)。平均随访21.6个月(CB)和19.8个月(CBIS)。平均MEPS和Q-DASH得分分别为96.3和2.8,而平均MEPS和Q-DASH得分分别为97.1和2.2。在任何结果测量中,两组之间均未发现统计学上的显著差异。结论:两种技术均提供了良好的中短期临床和功能预后。组间未发现统计学意义或临床意义的差异,尽管该研究可能不足以发现组间的微小差异。在外科特定实践模式的背景下,单独的CB固定似乎足以用于常规急性二头肌远端肌腱修复。证据等级:III级,回顾性比较研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Shoulder and Elbow
Shoulder and Elbow Medicine-Rehabilitation
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书