Clinical Outcomes After Revision Distal Biceps Tendon Surgery.

clinical outcomes distal biceps patient-reported outcomes revision

Journal

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Historique:
received: 14 08 2020
accepted: 26 08 2020
entrez: 22 2 2021
pubmed: 23 2 2021
medline: 23 2 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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. To determine the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision distal biceps tendon repair/reconstruction and evaluate the causes of primary repair failure. Case series; Level of evidence, 4. 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. 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). 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.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND 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 OBJECTIVE
To determine the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision distal biceps tendon repair/reconstruction and evaluate the causes of primary repair failure.
STUDY DESIGN METHODS
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS 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 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 CONCLUSIONS
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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33614801
doi: 10.1177/2325967120981752
pii: 10.1177_2325967120981752
pmc: PMC7869180
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

2325967120981752

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2021.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: M.S.C. has received faculty/speaker fees from Synthes, consulting fees from Acumed, and royalties from Acumed and Integra LifeSciences. J.J.F. has received education payments from Arthrex. N.N.V. has received research support from Arthrex, Arthrosurface, Athletico, ConMed Linvatec, DJO, Miomed, Mitek, and Ossur; consulting fees from Minivasive, Smith & Nephew, Medacta, Orthospace, and Arthrex; nonconsulting fees from Arthrex; royalties from Smith & Nephew and Vindico Medical–Orthopedics Hyperguide; and stock/stock options from Cymedica, Minivasive, and Omeros. A.A.R. has received research support from Aesculap/B.Braun, Arthrex, Histogenics, Medipost, NuTech, OrthoSpace, Smith & Nephew, and Zimmer; consulting fees and speaking fees from Arthrex; and royalties from Arthrex, Saunders/Mosby-Elsevier, and SLACK. R.M.F. has received grant support from Arthrex, educational payments from Arthrex/Medwest and Smith & Nephew, and royalties from Elsevier. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Références

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Dec 17;96(24):2086-90
pubmed: 25520343
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Oct;41(10):2288-95
pubmed: 24007757
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013 Oct;133(10):1361-6
pubmed: 23880841
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985 Mar;67(3):418-21
pubmed: 3972866
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Jul 3;94(13):1166-74
pubmed: 22760383
Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2016 Dec;11(6):962-970
pubmed: 27904798
Hand (N Y). 2016 Jun;11(2):238-44
pubmed: 27390570
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014 Jan;44(1):30-9
pubmed: 24175606
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Mar-Apr;18(2):283-7
pubmed: 19101177
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Oct;27(10):1898-1906
pubmed: 30139681
Orthop Clin North Am. 2016 Apr;47(2):435-44
pubmed: 26772952
J Hand Surg Am. 2012 Oct;37(10):2112-7
pubmed: 22938802
J Hand Surg Am. 2013 Apr;38(4):641-9
pubmed: 23481405
Injury. 2013 Apr;44(4):417-20
pubmed: 23199755
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Aug;43(8):2012-7
pubmed: 26063401
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Nov;45(13):3020-3029
pubmed: 28837369
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Dec 15;42(24):1908-1916
pubmed: 28658040
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985 Mar;67(3):414-7
pubmed: 3972865
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jun;26(6):1031-1036
pubmed: 28526421

Auteurs

Gagan Grewal (G)

Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Mark S Cohen (MS)

Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

John J Fernandez (JJ)

Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Nikhil N Verma (NN)

Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Classifications MeSH