We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Distal biceps brachii tendon repairs: a single-incision technique using a cortical button with interference screw versus a double-incision technique using suture fixation through bone tunnels.
American Journal of Sports Medicine 2015 May
BACKGROUND: Distal biceps brachii tendon repairs performed with a tension slide technique using a cortical button (CB) and interference screw are stronger than those based on suture fixation through bone tunnels (BTs) in biomechanical studies. However, clinical comparison of these 2 techniques is lacking in the literature.
PURPOSE: To perform a clinical comparison of the single-incision CB and double-incision BT techniques.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS: Distal biceps tendon ruptures repaired through either the single-incision CB or double-incision BT technique were retrospectively identified at a single institution. Patients>1 year out from surgery were assessed for range of motion, strength, and complications, and they completed a DASH questionnaire (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand).
RESULTS: Patients in the CB group (n=20) were older (52±9.5 vs 43.7±8.7 years; P=.008), had a shorter interval from surgery to evaluation (17.7±5 vs 30.8±16.5 months; P=.001), and were less likely to smoke (0% vs 28.5%; P=.02) compared with the BT patients (n=21). DASH scores were similar between groups (4.46±4.4 [CB] vs 5.7±7.5 [BT]; P=.65). Multivariate analysis revealed no differences in range of motion or strength between groups. More CB patients (30%; n=6) experienced a complication compared with those in the BT group (4.8%; n=1) (P=.04), and these complications were predominantly paresthesias of the superficial radial nerve that did not resolve. There were no reoperations or repair failures in either group.
CONCLUSION: Both the single-incision CB and double-incision BT techniques provided excellent clinical results. Complications were more common in the single-incision CB group and most commonly involved paresthesias of the superficial radial nerve.
PURPOSE: To perform a clinical comparison of the single-incision CB and double-incision BT techniques.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS: Distal biceps tendon ruptures repaired through either the single-incision CB or double-incision BT technique were retrospectively identified at a single institution. Patients>1 year out from surgery were assessed for range of motion, strength, and complications, and they completed a DASH questionnaire (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand).
RESULTS: Patients in the CB group (n=20) were older (52±9.5 vs 43.7±8.7 years; P=.008), had a shorter interval from surgery to evaluation (17.7±5 vs 30.8±16.5 months; P=.001), and were less likely to smoke (0% vs 28.5%; P=.02) compared with the BT patients (n=21). DASH scores were similar between groups (4.46±4.4 [CB] vs 5.7±7.5 [BT]; P=.65). Multivariate analysis revealed no differences in range of motion or strength between groups. More CB patients (30%; n=6) experienced a complication compared with those in the BT group (4.8%; n=1) (P=.04), and these complications were predominantly paresthesias of the superficial radial nerve that did not resolve. There were no reoperations or repair failures in either group.
CONCLUSION: Both the single-incision CB and double-incision BT techniques provided excellent clinical results. Complications were more common in the single-incision CB group and most commonly involved paresthesias of the superficial radial nerve.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app