OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the functional outcome and quality of life in distal biceps tendon repair with single incision technique and anchor fixation method.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was made of patients with complete distal biceps tendon rupture. The chosen repair method was single incision technique with anchor fixation. The outcome was assessed with functional testing of the elbow with strength and ROM. Additionally Mayo elbow performance index, Oxford elbow score, Disability arm hand shoulder questionnaire and patient rated elbow evaluation scores were used to evaluate quality of life.
RESULTS: Of the 28 patients, the average strength in flexion and supination was decreased with 91% and 89% of the strength compared to the non-injured arm. ROM was preserved in flexion, extension, supination and pronation. The mean scores for quality of life evaluation were MEPS = 96 ± 7.8, OES = 46.8 ± 1.9, DASH = 1.0 ± 1.9 and PREE = 2.0 ± 3.6. LABCN injury was the most common temporary complication with 30% followed by pain with 23%. Two patients were identified with HO and 1 patient was identified with median nerve injury. There were no cases of radioulnar synostosis and PIN injury.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall strength in flexion and supination were slightly decreased with preserved ROM. Patients reported nearly perfect quality of life as demonstrated with the scores. The complications rate was high with mainly minor complications. Distal biceps tendon repair with single incision technique and anchor fixation overall leads to a very satisfying outcome.

UNASSIGNED: Treatment modalities for partial distal biceps tendon (DBT) ruptures include conservative management (immobilization, medication, and physical therapy) or surgery. Selecting treatment modality can present a challenge to both patient and provider.
UNASSIGNED: It was hypothesized that patients undergoing surgical treatment for partial DBT rupture would have higher complications but better overall strength, range of motion (ROM), and patient satisfaction.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic Review.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review was performed in adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Cochrane, Embase, and Medline databases were searched for studies published through May 2023. Studies were included if they examined patients with a partial DBT rupture who underwent treatment. Exclusion criteria were non-human studies, studies not in English, reviews, technical notes, letters to the editor, surgical technique papers, and studies reported in a prior review.
UNASSIGNED: 13 studies consisting of 290 patients with a partial DBT tear were included in this review. 75% of the patients were male and the ages ranged from 23 - 75 years. The follow up for the patients ranged from 1 - 94 months. 55 patients underwent conservative treatment versus 256 patients underwent surgical treatment. Outcomes examined by the studies included pain, strength, range of motion (ROM), complications, patient reported outcomes (PROs), return to activity, and patient satisfaction.
UNASSIGNED: Treatment for partial DBT tear via surgery or conservative treatment both produce good clinical outcomes. There are similar outcomes between treatment options for pain and ROM. Conservative treatment had some poorer outcomes in terms of strength after treatment. Surgical treatment had more complications and a few patients with decreased satisfaction. Overall, both are viable treatment options, requiring a physician and patient discussion regarding the pros and cons of both options as a part of a shared decision-making process that incorporates patient priorities.

BACKGROUND: Distal biceps tendon repair is usually performed via a double-incision or single-incision bicortical drilling technique. However, these techniques are associated with specific complications and usually do not allow for anatomic footprint restoration. It was the aim of this study to report the clinical results of a double intracortical button anatomic footprint repair technique for distal biceps tendon tears. We hypothesized that this technique would result in supination strength comparable to the uninjured side with a low rerupture rate and minimal bony or neurologic complications.
METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-surgeon cohort study of a consecutive series of 22 patients with a mean (standard deviation) age of 50.7 (9.4) years and at least 1-year follow-up after distal biceps tendon repair. At final follow-up, complications, range of motion (ROM), the Patient-rated Elbow Evaluation (PREE), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, patient satisfaction, and supination strength in neutral as well as 60° of supination were analyzed. Radiographic evaluation was performed on a computed tomography scan.
RESULTS: One patient (4.5%) experienced slight paresthesia in the area of the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve. Heterotopic ossification was seen in 1 patient (4.5%). All patients recovered full ROM except for 1 who had 10° of loss of flexion and extension. Median PREE score was 4.6 (0-39.6), median MEP was 100 (70-100), and median DASH score was 1.4 (0-16.7). All but 1 patient were very satisfied with the outcome. The affected arm had a mean of 98% (±13%) of neutral supination strength (P = .633) and 94% (±12%) of supination strength in 60° (P = .054) compared with the contralateral, unaffected side. There were 4 cases (18.2%) of cortical thinning due to at least 1 button and 1 case of button pullout (4.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: The double intracortical button anatomic footprint repair technique seems to provide reliable restoration of supination strength and excellent patient satisfaction while minimizing complications, particularly nerve damage and heterotopic ossification.

The distal rupture of the biceps brachii muscle tendon (DBT) accounts for 3% of biceps ruptures. Diagnosis typically relies on high clinical suspicion and complementary imaging studies, with >90% of cases documented in males between the fourth and sixth decades of life. Reports of DBT ruptures in females are scarce, mostly involving partial and degenerative injuries. Here, we present an unprecedented case of a 28-year-old female professional mixed martial arts athlete with a total traumatic DBT rupture. The athlete underwent surgical repair using anchor reattachment technique. No complications were observed, and the athlete showed satisfactory outcomes, being cleared for physiotherapy after 2 weeks and returning to sports after a 3-month postoperative period.

This case study describes a patient with a clinically ruptured distal biceps tendon, with ultrasound detecting an isolated rupture of the medial bundle of a bifid distal biceps tendon. A 45-year-old male presented to the accident and emergency department with a week-old history of a right elbow injury. The ultrasound scan demonstrated a hypoechoic, corrugated distal biceps tendon with a tendon stump close to the radial tuberosity insertion in keeping with a rupture. However, a small caliber accessory or bifid distal biceps tendon was also identified and was intact. Typically, distal biceps tendon ruptures occur following a traumatic event with most detected clinically although imaging is required to confirm the diagnosis. Ultrasound is utilized to assess these injuries, and several different techniques or approaches are described in the literature. A combination of these approaches is required to make an accurate diagnosis. Detection of bifid distal biceps tendons is important for patient management, especially if a surgical repair is considered. This case highlights the anatomical variant of a bifid distal biceps tendon, which was ruptured clinically. The ultrasound diagnosis of distal biceps tendon ruptures can be challenging, especially when there is limited tendon retraction. This case also demonstrated the importance of dynamic ultrasound in the assessment of tendon ruptures.

Distal biceps tendon (DBT) is a relatively rare injury mainly occurring in middle-aged men while in eccentric biceps muscle contraction. Clinical appearance with proximal avulsion of the muscle and specific clinical tests are most of the time sufficient for diagnosing DBT, but if needed ultrasonography and MRI, most often in FABS view, can be used to ensure diagnosis of DBT and partial DBT. Surgical anatomical reinsertion has shown to be a successful method of treatment, although conservative treatment can be initiated in older patients. Two different approaches are described in literature: single- and double-incision techniques with different fixation methods proving to have similarly good results. Major complications of surgical intervention are posterior interosseous nerve palsy and symptomatic heterotropic ossification. Overall outcome of surgical intervention has shown high subjective satisfaction with slight weakness in flexion and supination but mostly without loss in range of motion.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that hypertrophy of the radial tuberosity may result in impingement leading to either a lesion of the distal biceps tendon or rotational impairment. Two previous studies on hypertrophy of the radial tuberosity had contradictory results and did not examine the distance between the radius and ulna: the radioulnar window. Therefore, this comparative cohort study aimed to investigate the radioulnar window in healthy subjects and compare it with that in subjects with either nontraumatic-onset rotational impairment of the forearm or nontraumatic-onset distal biceps tendon ruptures with rotational impairment of the forearm by use of dynamic 3-dimensional computed tomography measurements to attain a comprehensive understanding of the underlying etiology of distal biceps tendon ruptures. We hypothesized that a smaller radioulnar window would increase the risk of having a nontraumatic-onset distal biceps tendon rupture and/or rotational impairment compared with healthy individuals.
METHODS: This study measured the distance between the radius and ulna at the level of the radial tuberosity using entire-forearm computed tomography scans of 15 patients at the Amphia Hospital between 2019 and 2022. Measurements of healthy subjects were compared with those of subjects who had nontraumatic-onset rotational impairment of the forearm and subjects who had a nontraumatic-onset distal biceps tendon rupture with rotational impairment of the forearm. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for individual comparisons, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for group comparisons.
RESULTS: A significant difference was found between the radioulnar window in the forearms of the subjects with a distal biceps tendon rupture (mean, 1.6 mm; standard deviation 0.2 mm) and the radioulnar window in the forearms of the healthy subjects (mean, 4.8 mm; standard deviation, 1.4 mm; P = .018). A trend toward smaller radioulnar windows in the rotational impairment groups was also observed, although it was not significant (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The radioulnar window in the forearms of the subjects with a distal biceps tendon rupture with rotational impairment was significantly smaller than that in the forearms of the healthy subjects. Therefore, patients with a smaller radioulnar window have a higher risk of rupturing the distal biceps tendon. Nontraumatic-onset rotational impairment of the forearm may also be caused by a similar mechanism. Future studies are needed to further evaluate these findings.

BACKGROUND: Distal biceps tendon ruptures are relatively rare injuries that typically require surgical intervention to restore flexion and supination strength. Concerns have been raised regarding the risk of nerve injuries, particularly the posterior interosseous nerve (PIN), associated with the use of cortical buttons in distal biceps repair. This study aimed to estimate the incidence of PIN injury as well as injuries to the lateral cutaneous nerve of the forearm and superficial branch of the radial nerve following distal biceps repair using cortical buttons.
METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on all patients who underwent distal biceps repair with cortical buttons at a district general hospital between January 2014 and May 2022. Patient data, including age, gender, time from injury to surgery, type of procedure, and postoperative nerve injuries, were collected. The incidence of nerve injuries was analyzed, and the outcomes were assessed during postoperative follow-up visits.
RESULTS: Ninety-six male patients were included in the study, with an average age of 45.6 years. The average time from injury to surgery was 22.6 days. All patients underwent primary repair except for two patients who underwent reconstruction with hamstring grafts. None of the patients experienced a PIN injury. However, 16 patients (16.7%) developed lateral cutaneous nerve injuries of the forearm, and three patients (3.1%) had superficial radial nerve injuries.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study, encompassing a large cohort of patients over an eight-year period, demonstrates the safety of distal biceps repair using cortical buttons with regard to PIN nerve injury. However, there were incidences of lateral cutaneous nerve of the forearm and superficial radial nerve injuries, consistent with previous studies.

Although the initial description of the distal biceps tendon (DBT) hook test (HT) reported 100% sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp), subsequent retrospective series have demonstrated imperfect validity. The purpose of this investigation was to prospectively assess the validity and reliability of the HT for complete DBT ruptures. We aimed to determine the Sn/Sp and interrater reliability for the HT.
A consecutive series of adult patients presenting to our outpatient clinics with an elbow complaint was prospectively examined. Patients were included if they had undergone advanced imaging (magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound) that imaged the DBT and underwent DBT repair. There were four participating surgeons, all of whom were blinded to magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound prior to performing the HT. To determine the Sn/Sp of the HT and advanced imaging, intraoperative findings served as the primary reference standard. The interrater reliability of the HT was calculated for cases in which a primary examiner (surgeon) and secondary examiner (physician assistant or resident) performed the HT.
Of 64 patients who had undergone advanced imaging, 28 (44%) underwent DBT surgery and were included in the assessment of Sn/Sp. The mean age was 49 years, and all patients were men. The Sn and Sp of the HT were 96% and 67%, respectively. Advanced imaging demonstrated 100% Sn and Sp. Twenty-five patients were evaluated by a primary and secondary examiner. The interrater reliability was substantial (Cohen kappa, 0.71).
The Sn and Sp of the HT were 96% and 67%, respectively, when assessed prospectively. Advanced imaging findings (magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound) demonstrated 100% Sn and Sp. The HT can be performed reliably by examiners with varying experience levels. Considering the imperfect validity of the HT, we caution against the use of this examination alone to diagnose DBT ruptures.
Diagnostic II.

Extracortical single-button (SB) inlay repair is a commonly used distal biceps tendon technique. However, complications (eg, neurovascular injury) and nonanatomic repairs have led to the development of intracortical fixation techniques.
To compare the biomechanical stability of extracortical SB repair with an anatomic intracortical double-button (DB) repair technique.
Controlled laboratory study.
The distal biceps tendon was transected in 18 cadaveric elbows from 9 donors. One elbow of each donor was randomly assigned to the extracortical SB or anatomic DB group. Both groups were cyclically loaded with 60 N over 1000 cycles between 90° of flexion and full extension. The elbow was then fixed in 90° of flexion and the repair construct loaded to failure. Gap formation and construct stiffness during cyclic loading and ultimate load to failure were analyzed.
When compared with the extracortical SB technique after 1000 cycles, the anatomic DB technique showed significantly less gap formation (mean ± SD, 2.7 ± 0.8 vs 1.5 ± 0.9 mm; P = .017) and significantly more construct stiffness (87.4 ± 32.7 vs 119.9 ± 31.6 N/mm; P = .023). Ultimate load to failure was not significantly different between the groups (277 ± 93 vs 285 ± 135 N; P = .859). The failure mode in the anatomic DB group was significantly different from that of the extracortical SB technique (P = .002) and was due to fracture avulsion of the cortical button in 7 of 9 specimens (vs none in the SB group).
Our study shows that the intracortical DB technique produces equivalent or superior biomechanical performance to that of the SB technique. The DB technique may offer a clinically viable alternative to the SB repair technique.
This study suggests, at worst, an equivalent and, at best, a superior biomechanical performance of intracortical anatomic DB footprint repair at the time of surgery. However, the mode of failure suggests that this technique should not be used in patients with poor bone quality.