Acute distal biceps tendon rupture: retrospective analysis of two different approaches and fixation techniques.

IF 1.5
Marco Di Stefano, Lorenzo Sensi, Leonardo di Bella, Raffaele Tucci, Efisio Bazzucchi, Luigi Zanna
{"title":"Acute distal biceps tendon rupture: retrospective analysis of two different approaches and fixation techniques.","authors":"Marco Di Stefano,&nbsp;Lorenzo Sensi,&nbsp;Leonardo di Bella,&nbsp;Raffaele Tucci,&nbsp;Efisio Bazzucchi,&nbsp;Luigi Zanna","doi":"10.1007/s00590-021-03132-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of our study is to compare the modified double incision (DI) with bone tunnel reinsertion with the single-incision (SI) double tension slide technique in terms of clinical and functional outcomes and complication rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective comparative analysis was performed on 65 patients treated for total distal biceps tendon rupture. The surgical technique adopted for each patient was based on the preference of two experienced elbow surgeons. The DASH and MAYO questionnaires, functional outcome and ROM were recorded in all subjects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 65 patients, we collected data of a cohort of 54 distal biceps tendon ruptures that satisfied inclusion criteria. Twenty-five were treated by modified DI and 29 SI techniques. The recovery of the complete ROM in terms of flexion/extension and prono-supination occurred in the 79.6% of the patients, without statistical significant difference between the adopted technique. We reported a complication rate of 12% and 20.7% for DI and SI techniques, respectively, without statistical correlation (P = 0.84). The average DASH score was similar for DI and SI techniques without significant differences (P = 0,848). The Mayo score results were excellent in the majority of the patients. No significant difference in MAYO results was reported comparing the surgical techniques (P = 1).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both techniques provide a reliable and strong repair with an optimal recovery of ROM returning to preinjury activity with substantially overlapping timelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":520619,"journal":{"name":"European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie","volume":" ","pages":"1543-1551"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9587971/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-021-03132-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of our study is to compare the modified double incision (DI) with bone tunnel reinsertion with the single-incision (SI) double tension slide technique in terms of clinical and functional outcomes and complication rates.

Methods: A retrospective comparative analysis was performed on 65 patients treated for total distal biceps tendon rupture. The surgical technique adopted for each patient was based on the preference of two experienced elbow surgeons. The DASH and MAYO questionnaires, functional outcome and ROM were recorded in all subjects.

Results: Of 65 patients, we collected data of a cohort of 54 distal biceps tendon ruptures that satisfied inclusion criteria. Twenty-five were treated by modified DI and 29 SI techniques. The recovery of the complete ROM in terms of flexion/extension and prono-supination occurred in the 79.6% of the patients, without statistical significant difference between the adopted technique. We reported a complication rate of 12% and 20.7% for DI and SI techniques, respectively, without statistical correlation (P = 0.84). The average DASH score was similar for DI and SI techniques without significant differences (P = 0,848). The Mayo score results were excellent in the majority of the patients. No significant difference in MAYO results was reported comparing the surgical techniques (P = 1).

Conclusion: Both techniques provide a reliable and strong repair with an optimal recovery of ROM returning to preinjury activity with substantially overlapping timelines.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

急性二头肌远端肌腱断裂:两种不同入路和固定技术的回顾性分析。
目的:本研究的目的是比较改良双切口(DI)与单切口(SI)双张力滑块技术在临床和功能结果及并发症发生率方面的差异。方法:对65例治疗肱二头肌远端肌腱断裂的患者进行回顾性比较分析。每位患者采用的手术技术是基于两位经验丰富的肘部外科医生的偏好。记录所有受试者的DASH和MAYO问卷、功能结局和ROM。结果:在65例患者中,我们收集了54例满足纳入标准的远端肱二头肌肌腱断裂的队列数据。改良DI处理25例,SI处理29例。79.6%的患者在屈伸和前旋方面完全恢复了ROM,采用的技术之间无统计学差异。我们报道DI和SI技术的并发症发生率分别为12%和20.7%,无统计学相关性(P = 0.84)。DI和SI技术的平均DASH评分相似,无显著差异(P = 0.848)。大多数患者的梅奥评分结果都很好。MAYO结果与手术技术比较无显著差异(P = 1)。结论:这两种技术都提供了可靠和强大的修复,使ROM恢复到损伤前活动的最佳恢复,并且时间基本重叠。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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