BACKGROUND: Distal biceps brachii tendon repairs performed by a "tension slide technique" with a cortical button and interference screw (CB) are stronger than repairs by suture anchor (SA) techniques in biomechanical studies. However, clinical comparison of the 2 techniques is lacking in the literature. METHODS: Distal biceps tendon ruptures repaired with either a CB or SA technique through a single incision were identified from 2008 to 2013 at a single institution. Patients more than a year out from surgery completed a Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. In addition, patients were assessed for range of motion, strength, and complications. All assessments were performed by individuals blinded to the surgical technique. Strength and motion values from the operative extremity minus the nonoperative arm values yielded differential values that were averaged and used to compare treatment groups. RESULTS: The CB (n = 20) and SA (n = 17) groups had similar demographics, except for the time from the surgery to evaluation (18 ± 5 vs 32 ± 15 months, respectively; P = .007). Range of motion differed slightly between the groups. The CB group demonstrated better pronation (0° ± 5° vs -4° ± 10°; P < .05), and the SA group demonstrated better flexion (2° ± 0° vs -3° ± 5°; P < .05) and supination (-2° ± 5° vs -7° ± 12°; P < .05). Strength did not differ significantly between the groups. DASH scores did not significantly differ between the groups with univariate analysis, but multivariate analysis demonstrated slightly better DASH scores with the CB technique (4.5 ± 4.4 vs 10.3 ± 14.9; P < .0009). Complication rates were similar between groups (CB 30%, SA 35%; P > .05). CONCLUSION: CB and SA techniques provide good clinical results with similar complication rates.
BACKGROUND: Distal biceps brachii tendon repairs performed by a "tension slide technique" with a cortical button and interference screw (CB) are stronger than repairs by suture anchor (SA) techniques in biomechanical studies. However, clinical comparison of the 2 techniques is lacking in the literature. METHODS: Distal biceps tendon ruptures repaired with either a CB or SA technique through a single incision were identified from 2008 to 2013 at a single institution. Patients more than a year out from surgery completed a Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire. In addition, patients were assessed for range of motion, strength, and complications. All assessments were performed by individuals blinded to the surgical technique. Strength and motion values from the operative extremity minus the nonoperative arm values yielded differential values that were averaged and used to compare treatment groups. RESULTS: The CB (n = 20) and SA (n = 17) groups had similar demographics, except for the time from the surgery to evaluation (18 ± 5 vs 32 ± 15 months, respectively; P = .007). Range of motion differed slightly between the groups. The CB group demonstrated better pronation (0° ± 5° vs -4° ± 10°; P < .05), and the SA group demonstrated better flexion (2° ± 0° vs -3° ± 5°; P < .05) and supination (-2° ± 5° vs -7° ± 12°; P < .05). Strength did not differ significantly between the groups. DASH scores did not significantly differ between the groups with univariate analysis, but multivariate analysis demonstrated slightly better DASH scores with the CB technique (4.5 ± 4.4 vs 10.3 ± 14.9; P < .0009). Complication rates were similar between groups (CB 30%, SA 35%; P > .05). CONCLUSION: CB and SA techniques provide good clinical results with similar complication rates.
Authors: Leandro Masini Ribeiro; Jose Inacio de Almeida Neto; Paulo Santoro Belangero; Alberto de Castro Pochini; Carlos Vicente Andreoli; Benno Ejnisman Journal: Rev Bras Ortop Date: 2018-08-02