To evaluate the incidence, etiology, and clinical outcomes after revision distal biceps tendon repair. We hypothesized that re-ruptures are rare and can be reattached with satisfactory results.
Cases were identified from the case log of the senior author. Demographic information, details regarding the primary repair and subsequent injury, time between reinjury and reattachment, and operative findings were recorded. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons–Elbow (ASES-E) functional outcome scoring systems. Range of motion, strength, and ability to return to work were recorded.
We identified 10 patients with re-rupture, all of whom were men. Average age was 46 years (range, 35–57 years). Four ruptures occurred in the dominant arm. Three patients had a history of bilateral ruptures. Incidence of primary failure was 1.1%. In 6 patients, re-rupture occurred 6 days to 11 months after the primary surgery. Three patients described a sense of ripping or tearing after a specific traumatic event. Four others had persistent pain after the primary reattachment. Re-rupture resulted from the loss of fixation owing to technical error, the suture pulling out from the tendon, or suture breakage. Two patients required an allograft. The hook test was abnormal in 3 patients. Magnetic resonance imaging results did not affect the operative plan. Nine patients returned to their former occupation. Five returned for follow-up evaluation and completion of the DASH and ASES-E self-assessment examinations. Average DASH score was 4.4 (range, 0–19) and average ASES-E was 93.2 (range, 74–100). Postoperative average elbow flexion was 141° (range, 135° to 145°), elbow extension was –12° (range, –5° to –30°), pronation was 70°, and supination was 80°. Postoperative average supination strength was 87.8% of the nonsurgical arm (range, 79% to 106%); average pronation strength was 79.2% of the nonsurgical arm (range, 50% to 110%).
Revision reattachment resulted in acceptable functional outcomes.
Type of study/level of evidence
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Hand Surgery
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Distal biceps tendon ruptures an epidemiological analysis using a large population database.Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43: 2012-2017
- Distal biceps tendon ruptures: incidence, demographics and the effect of smoking.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002; 404: 275-283
- Rupture of the distal tendon of the biceps brachii: a biomechanical study.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985; 67: 418-421
- Nonoperative treatment of distal biceps tendon ruptures compared with a historical control group.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91: 2329-2334
- Proper placement of the distal biceps tendon during repair improves supination strength—a biomechanical analysis.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015; 24: 527-532
- Rupture of the distal biceps brachii tendon: isokinetic power analysis and complications after anatomic reinsertion compared with fixation to the brachialis muscle.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003; 12: 607-611
- Single versus double-incision technique for the repair of acute distal biceps tendon ruptures: a randomized clinical trial.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94: 1166-1174
- Repair techniques for acute distal biceps tendon ruptures.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96: 2086-2090
- Distal biceps ruptures: open and endoscopic techniques.Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016; 9: 215-223
- The distal biceps tendon.J Hand Surg Am. 2013; 38: 811-821
- Endobutton repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures.J Hand Surg Am. 2009; 34: 1541-1548
- Functional outcome after repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures using the endobutton technique.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18: 283-287
- Patient-oriented functional outcome after repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures using a single-incision technique.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14: 302-306
- Complications following distal biceps repair.J Hand Surg Am. 2012; 37: 2112-2117
- Low incidence of tendon rerupture after distal biceps repair by cortical button and interference screw.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23: 1532-1536
- Immediate range of motion after distal biceps tendon repair.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14: 516-518
- Trends associated with distal biceps tendon repair in the United States, 2007 to 2011.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016; 25: 676-680
- Complications of distal biceps tendon repairs.Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2008; 16: 148-153
- Repair of the ruptured distal biceps tendon a systematic review.Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36: 1618-1624
- Re-rupture rate of primarily repaired distal biceps tendon injuries.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23: 850-854
- Acute failure of distal biceps reconstruction: a case report.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007; 16: e10-e12
- Complications of repair of the distal biceps tendon with the modified two-incision technique.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000; 82: 1575-1581
- Complications associated with repair of a distal biceps rupture using the modified two-incision technique.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17: 68S-71S
- Reattachment of the ruptured distal biceps tendon using a modified anterior approach.Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg. 2000; 4: 93-100
- The hook test for distal biceps tendon avulsion.Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35: 1865-1869
- Effectiveness of MRI to assess the integrity of distal biceps tendon repair during the first year postoperatively.Curr Orthop Pract. 2014; 25: 563-567
- Repaired distal bicep magnetic resonance imaging anatomy compared with outcome.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012; 21: 1623-1631
- Bilateral distal biceps tendon ruptures.J Hand Surg Am. 2012; 37: 120-123
- Grip strength and hand dominance: challenging the 10% rule.Am J Occup Ther. 1989; 43: 444-447
Published online: June 24, 2019
Accepted: May 3, 2019
Received: August 20, 2018
No benefits in any form have been received or will be received related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
© 2020 by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. All rights reserved.