Background Primary repair of chronic distal biceps tendon ruptures may not be possible because of tendon retraction, and there remains no clear consensus on the type of reconstruction technique used. The purpose of this study was to report the clinical outcomes and complication rates following reconstruction of chronic distal biceps tendon ruptures. Methods A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. The following databases were searched: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary outcomes of interest included range of motion, strength, and functional outcome scores. Secondary outcomes included complication, reoperation, and revision rates. Outcomes and complication rates of each graft type and fixation technique were aggregated and compared with nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank and rank sum tests. Spearman rank coefficients were calculated for time from injury to surgery on all outcomes. Results There were no significant differences found between the graft type or fixation technique for postoperative range of motion, strength, and patient-reported outcomes. Postoperative complications were substantially higher in the autograft group (34%) as compared to the allograft group (14%). The fixation technique used also demonstrated a significantly increased complication rate in the weave group compared with the onlay group (34% and 9%, respectively). Conclusion Our results do not reveal any statistically significant differences between groups in the primary outcomes. However, substantially higher complication rates were observed in the autograft and weave cohorts; more than half of the complications related to the use of autograft were associated with donor site morbidity. No specific graft type was identified as superior, although this may be due to the small patient numbers included within this study.

Study Design: Ambispective cohort study. Objective: Limited data exists comparing surgeon and patient expectations of outcome following spine surgery. The objective of this study was to elicit whether any differences exist between patient and surgeon expectations for common spine surgeries. Methods: Ten common age-appropriate clinical scenarios were generated and sent to Canadian spine surgeons to determine surgeon expectations for standard spine surgeries. Patients in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) registry matching the clinical scenarios were identified. Aggregated patient expectations were compared with surgeon responses for each scenario. A χ2 analysis was then completed to determine discrepancies between surgeon and patient expectations for each scenario. Results: A total of 51 Canadian spine surgeons completed the survey on surgical expectations. A total of 919 patients from multiple centers were identified within the CSORN database that matched the clinical scenarios. Our results demonstrated that patients tend to be more optimistic about the expected outcomes of surgery compared with the treating surgeon. The majority of patients in all clinical scenarios anticipated improvement in back or neck pain after surgery, which differed from surgeon expectations. Results also highlighted the effect of patient age on both patient and surgeon expectations. Discrepancies between patient and surgeon expectations were higher for older patients. Conclusion: We present data on patient and surgeon expectations for spine surgeries and show that differences exist particularly concerning the improvement of neck or back pain. Patient age plays a role in the agreement between the treating physicians and patients in regard to surgical expectations. The reasons for the discrepancies remain unclear.

No abstract