Clinical Outcomes After Revision Distal Biceps Tendon Surgery

Background: Little is known about the clinical indications of performing a revision distal biceps tendon repair/reconstruction, and there is even less data available on the clinical outcomes of patients after revision surgery. Purpose: To determine the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision distal biceps tendon repair/reconstruction and evaluate the causes of primary repair failure. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing ipsilateral primary and revision distal biceps tendon repair/reconstruction at a single institution. Between 2011 and 2016, a total of 277 patients underwent distal biceps tendon repair, with 8 patients requiring revision surgery. Patient characteristics, surgical technique, and patient-reported outcome scores (shortened version of Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand [QuickDASH], 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12], visual analog scale [VAS] for pain, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score [MEPS]), were assessed. Complications as well as indications for reoperation after primary and revision surgery were examined. Results: The overall revision rate was 2.9%. The number of single- and double-incision techniques utilized were similar among the primary repairs (50% single-incision, 50% double-incision) and revision repairs/reconstructions (62.5% single-incision, 37.5% double-incision). Reasons for reoperation included continued pain and weakness (n = 7), limited range of motion (n = 2), and acute traumatic re-rupture (n = 1). The median duration between primary and revision surgery was 9.5 months (interquartile range [IQR], 5.8-12.8 months). Intraoperatively, the most common finding during revision was a partially ruptured, fibrotic distal tendon with extensive adhesions. At a median of 33.7 months after revision surgery (IQR, 21.7-40.7 months), the median QuickDASH was 12.5 (IQR, 1.7-23.3), MEPS was 92.5 (IQR, 80.0-100), SF-12 mental component measure was 53.4 (IQR, 47.6-58.2), SF-12 physical component measure was 52.1 (IQR, 36.9-55.4), and VAS for elbow pain was 1.0 (IQR, 0-2.0). Revision surgery had a complication rate of 37.5% (3 of 8 patients), consisting of persistent pain and weakness (2 patients; 25%) and numbness over the dorsal radial sensory nerve (1 patient; 12.5%). Two patients required reoperation (25% reoperation rate). Conclusion: The overall revision distal biceps repair/reconstruction rate was approximately 3%. While patients undergoing revision distal biceps repair demonstrated improved outcomes after revision surgery, these outcomes remained inferior to previously reported outcomes of patients undergoing only primary distal biceps repair.

[1]  G. Bain,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of transosseous cortical button and Footprint repair techniques for acute distal biceps tendon ruptures , 2020, Shoulder & elbow.

[2]  B. Loeffler,et al.  Major complications after distal biceps tendon repairs: retrospective cohort analysis of 970 cases. , 2018, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[3]  F. Kovacs,et al.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Quality of Life for Patients With Low Back Pain , 2017, Spine.

[4]  R. Mirzayan,et al.  Surgical Treatment of Distal Biceps Tendon Ruptures: An Analysis of Complications in 784 Surgical Repairs , 2017, The American journal of sports medicine.

[5]  G. Athwal,et al.  Delayed repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures is successful: a case-control study. , 2017, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[6]  J. Semmler,et al.  FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES AFTER DISTAL BICEPS BRACHII REPAIR: A CASE SERIES. , 2016, International journal of sports physical therapy.

[7]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Complications of Distal Biceps Repair. , 2016, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[8]  Peter Goljan,et al.  Single Incision Distal Biceps Repair With Hemi-Krackow Suture Technique , 2016, Hand.

[9]  F. Franchignoni,et al.  Minimal clinically important difference of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (QuickDASH). , 2014, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[10]  Theodore S. Wolfson,et al.  Clinical Outcomes After Chronic Distal Biceps Reconstruction With Allografts , 2013, The American journal of sports medicine.

[11]  T. Tjardes,et al.  High complication rate following distal biceps refixation with cortical button , 2013, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[12]  R. Calfee,et al.  Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. , 2013, The Journal of hand surgery.

[13]  R. Nanda,et al.  Distal biceps tendon rupture: current concepts. , 2013, Injury.

[14]  M. Stein,et al.  Complications following distal biceps repair. , 2012, The Journal of hand surgery.

[15]  F. Verstreken,et al.  Functional outcome after repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures using the endobutton technique. , 2009, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[16]  B. Baker,et al.  Rupture of the distal tendon of the biceps brachii. Operative versus non-operative treatment. , 1985, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[17]  K. An,et al.  Rupture of the distal tendon of the biceps brachii. A biomechanical study. , 1985, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.