Operative Versus Nonoperative Management for Distal Biceps Brachii Tendon Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: Both nonoperative and operative treatments have been proposed to manage distal biceps brachii tendon avulsions. However, the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches have not been properly quantified. Purpose: To summarize the current literature on both nonoperative and operative approaches for distal biceps brachii tendon ruptures and to quantify results and limitations. The advantages and disadvantages of the different surgical strategies were investigated as well. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in March 2020 using PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Iscrctn.com , clinicaltrials.gov , greylit.org , opengrey.eu , and Scopus literature databases. All human studies evaluating the clinical outcome of nonoperative treatment as well as different surgical techniques were included. The influence of the treatment approach was assessed in terms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and the Mayo Elbow Performance Index; extension, flexion, supination, and pronation range of motion (ROM); and flexion and supination strength ratio between the injured and uninjured arms. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane guidelines. Results: Of 1275 studies, 53 studies (N = 1380 patients) matched the inclusion criteria. The results of the meta-analysis comparing operative versus nonoperative approaches for distal biceps tendon avulsion showed significant differences in favor of surgery in terms of DASH score ( P = .02), Mayo Elbow Performance Index ( P < .001), flexion strength (94.7% vs 83.0%, respectively; P < .001), and supination strength (89.2% vs 62.6%, respectively; P < .001). The surgical approach presented 10% heterotopic ossifications, 10% transient sensory nerve injuries, 1.6% transient motor nerve injuries, and a 0.1% rate of persistent motorial disorders. Comparison of the different surgical techniques showed similar results for the fixation methods, whereas the single-incision technique led to a better pronation ROM versus the double-incision approach (81.5° vs 76.1°, respectively; P = .01). Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis showed the superiority of surgical management over the nonoperative approach for distal biceps tendon detachment, with superior flexion and supination strength and better patient-reported outcomes. The single-incision surgical approach demonstrated a slightly better pronation ROM compared with the double-incision approach, whereas all fixation methods led to similar outcomes.

Indirect traumatic musculocutaneous nerve injury confused with static line injury: A case report

The musculocutaneous nerve is rarely injured because it is short and is located deep in the shoulder and arm. Damage is usually caused by direct injuries, including stabbing, explosion, and surgery in a war setting. Although indirect injury of the musculocutaneous nerve is extremely rare, it occurs in various situations. In military parachuting-related activities, musculoskeletal injury occurs most commonly, and static line injury is known as rupture of the biceps brachii tendon. However, musculocutaneous neuropathy can also result from secondary injury by the static line. The musculocutaneous nerve goes together with the biceps brachii muscle, and the musculocutaneous nerve could overstretch and compress within the coracobrachialis muscle where the nerve is relatively fixed due to the overloading of the upper arm with shoulder extension. This report focuses on the indirect musculocutaneous nerve injury with axonotmesis following an overloading event by the static line during military parachuting. In this case, some physicians may confuse nerve injury with static line injury, leading to delays in the diagnosis of neuropathy. If the biceps brachii muscle is damaged due to trauma, checking for the accompanying musculocutaneous nerve injury is necessary.

Clinical and Functional Outcomes After Operative and Nonoperative Treatment of Distal Biceps Brachii Tendon Ruptures in a Consecutive Case Series

Background: Patients with ruptures of the distal biceps brachii tendon (DBBT) have traditionally been treated via surgical repair, despite limited patient data on nonoperative management. Purpose/Hypothesis: To determine the clinical and functional outcomes for patients with partial and complete DBBT injuries treated nonoperatively or surgically through an anatomic single-incision technique. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in outcomes in patients treated with nonoperative or operative management. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified all patients with a partial or complete DBBT injury sustained between 2003 and 2017. Surgically treated patients underwent DBBT repair using an anatomic single-incision technique. Nonoperative management consisted of formal physical therapy. The following clinical outcome measures were included for analysis: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score; the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) upper extremity patient questionnaire; the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score; and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Results: A total of 60 patients (mean ± SD age, 47.8 ± 11.5 years; range, 18-70 years) sustained DBBT ruptures (38 complete and 22 partial) during the study period. Of patients with complete DBBT, 34 were treated operatively and 4 nonoperatively; of those with partial DBBT, 11 were treated operatively and 11 nonoperatively. At a mean follow-up of 5.4 ± 4.0 years (range, 0.5-16.6 years), patients with complete DBBT ruptures achieved overall similar improvements with respect to mean ASES pain, ASES function, SANE, and DASH scores, regardless of whether they were treated operatively or nonoperatively. Subjective satisfaction and functional scores were comparable between the groups. Similarly, at a mean follow-up of 4.1 ± 3.8 years (range, 0.5-11.3 years), patients with partial DBBT injuries had improved mean ASES pain, ASES function, SANE, and DASH scores, regardless of operative or nonoperative treatment. Subjective satisfaction and functional scores were comparable between these groups. For those treated surgically, 5 patients (11.1%) sustained a surgical postoperative complication. Conclusion: In our case series, patients were able to achieve satisfactory outcomes regardless of whether they were treated nonoperatively or with an anatomic single-incision approach for complete or partial DBBT ruptures.

The Role of Deadlifts in Distal Biceps Brachii Tendon Ruptures: An Alternative Mechanism Described With YouTube Videos

Background: The classic injury mechanism of a distal biceps brachii tendon rupture (DBBTR) is eccentric loading to the flexed elbow when the forearm is supinated. Purpose: To determine alternative mechanisms of a DBBTR in powerlifting sports, particularly in deadlift competitions, with the use of YouTube videos. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: A search on YouTube was performed using the search terms “distal biceps tendon rupture” and “distal biceps tendon injury” combined with “competition,” “deadlift,” and “powerlifting.” The videos underwent an evaluation for accuracy by 3 surgeons according to predetermined criteria. Type of sports activity, participant sex, side of the injury, and arm positions at the time of the injury were recorded. Results: Among the videos reviewed, 35 injuries were found appropriate for an evaluation. All participants were male. The majority of the injuries (n = 25) were observed during the deadlift. Only in 1 deadlift injury were both forearms in supination. In the remaining deadlift injuries (n = 24), all elbows were in extension, with 1 forearm in supination and the other in pronation. Among the deadlift injuries in the mixed-grip position, all ruptures occurred in a supinated extremity: 25% (n = 6) of ruptures occurred on the right side, and 75% (n = 18) of ruptures occurred on the left side; this was a significant difference ( P = .014). Conclusion: We described an alternative mechanism for a DBBTR, namely, eccentric loading to an extended elbow when the forearm is supinated during the deadlift. As all the ruptures occurred in a supinated extremity, holding the bar with both forearms in pronation may prevent or decrease the risk of ruptures during the deadlift.

Long-term outcome following cranial biceps brachii tendon transposition in a dog with a traumatic cranial scapulohumeral luxation

Background: Cranial luxation of the scapulohumeral has been rarely reported in dogs and there is limited information available regarding surgical management of this condition, particularly with respect to long-term functional outcomes.Case Description: This report describes the successful resolution of a chronic traumatic cranial scapulohumeral joint luxation in a dog that was stabilized by cranial transposition of the biceps brachii tendon of origin. At surgery, an osteotomy of the greater tubercle was performed and a trough was made in the exposed bed of the osteotomy. The transverse humeral ligament was incised, and the bicipital tendon was levered into the trough and secured in that location by reattachment of the greater tubercle using multiple Kirschner wires and a figure-of-eight tension band wire. Postoperatively, the dog was maintained in a Spica splint for 2 weeks. Although surgical reduction was performed 4 months after the original injury, the luxation did not recur and the dog did not have appreciable lameness 14 months following the surgery.Conclusion: Although cranial transposition of the bicipital tendon is an invasive procedure, this dog’s scapulohumeral luxation did not recur and the procedure yielded an excellent long-term functional outcome.

No functional differences in anatomic reconstruction using a one-versus a two-point fixation for distal biceps tendon rupture through a single-incision anterior approach: A prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND: The distal biceps brachii tendon rupture is a rare injury of the musculoskeletal system. Multiple surgical techniques have been described for distal biceps brachii tendon repairs including suture anchors. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of anatomical distal biceps tendon refixation using either one or two suture anchors for reattachment and to determine whether there are significant clinically important differences on the number of anchors used for refixation. METHODS: A monocentric, randomized controlled trial was conducted, including 16 male patients with a mean age of 47.4 years (range, 31.0 to 58.0) in Group 1 (two suture anchors for refixation) and 15 male patients with a mean age of 47.4 (range, 35.0 to 59.0) in Group 2 (one suture anchor for refixation). All surgeries were performed through an anterior approach. The outcome was assessed using the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, the Andrews Carson Score (ACS) and by isokinetic strength measurement for the elbow flexion after six, twelve, 24 and 48 weeks. Radiographic controls were performed after 24 and 48 weeks. RESULTS: No significant differences between both groups were evident at any point during the follow-up period. A continuous improvement in outcome for both groups could be detected, reaching an OES: 46.3 (39.0 to 48.0) vs. 45.5 (30.0 to 48.0), MEPS: 98.0 (85.0 to 100.0) vs. 99.0 (85.0 to 100.0), DASH: 3.1 (0.0 to 16.7) vs. 2.9 (0.0 to 26.7), ACS: 197.0 (175.0 to 200.0) vs. 197.7