PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare clinical results and complication rate of a standard and mini-invasive reconstruction technique for distal biceps tendon rupture. METHODS: Twenty-eight cases of biceps tendon rupture were evaluated at mean 45-month follow-up. A standard anterior approach was used in 19 cases, and a less invasive anterior approach was used in nine cases. Suture anchors were used for tendon reconstruction in all cases. Elbow range of motion (ROM), subjective strength recovery, time to return to work and sports activities, and complications were recorded. Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH) the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were obtained for all patients. RESULTS: Mean ROM recovery was almost complete. Mean subjective strength recovery allowed full return to sports and work in 93 % of cases, within mean 3-month postoperative. Mean DASH, OES, and MEPS scores were good. The clinically relevant complications rate was 17.8 %, all associated with the standard extensile approach group (Group A). Asymptomatic heterotopic ossifications were detected in four cases (14.3 %), not affecting functional recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical results and complications rate of anatomical reconstruction of the distal biceps tendon rupture were comparable to the literature. Comparison between Group A and B showed no significant differences in terms of ROM, and OES and MEPS scores. Strength recovery, time to return to sports and work, and DASH score showed a positive trend in Group B. The clinically relevant complications rate was 0 % in Group B and 26 % in Group A.

Anatomic reinsertion of the distal biceps tendon rupture through a single anterior approach: Extensile or mini-invasive approach? A retrospective study at mean 45-month follow-up

MURENA, LUIGI;Canton, G;
2014

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare clinical results and complication rate of a standard and mini-invasive reconstruction technique for distal biceps tendon rupture. METHODS: Twenty-eight cases of biceps tendon rupture were evaluated at mean 45-month follow-up. A standard anterior approach was used in 19 cases, and a less invasive anterior approach was used in nine cases. Suture anchors were used for tendon reconstruction in all cases. Elbow range of motion (ROM), subjective strength recovery, time to return to work and sports activities, and complications were recorded. Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (DASH) the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were obtained for all patients. RESULTS: Mean ROM recovery was almost complete. Mean subjective strength recovery allowed full return to sports and work in 93 % of cases, within mean 3-month postoperative. Mean DASH, OES, and MEPS scores were good. The clinically relevant complications rate was 17.8 %, all associated with the standard extensile approach group (Group A). Asymptomatic heterotopic ossifications were detected in four cases (14.3 %), not affecting functional recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical results and complications rate of anatomical reconstruction of the distal biceps tendon rupture were comparable to the literature. Comparison between Group A and B showed no significant differences in terms of ROM, and OES and MEPS scores. Strength recovery, time to return to sports and work, and DASH score showed a positive trend in Group B. The clinically relevant complications rate was 0 % in Group B and 26 % in Group A.
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY
http://www.springer.com/medicine/orthopedics/journal/12306
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
bicipiti.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Digital Rights Management non definito
Dimensione 719.91 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
719.91 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11368/2871792
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact