Single Versus Double-Incision Technique for the Repair of Acute Distal Biceps Tendon Ruptures

Abstract

There were no significant differences in outcomes between the single and double-incision distal biceps repair techniques other than a 10% advantage in final flexion strength with the latter. Most complications were minor, with a significantly greater prevalence in the single-incision group.

The Biotenodesis Screw and Endobutton Technique for Repair for Acute Distal Biceps Tendon Rupture

“…Single incision surgery also lent itself to the newly introduced interference screw and cortical button techniques. There is still great debate as to whether one or 2 incision techniques have an effect on the risk of neurological injury [10,12]. However, it is now widely reported that range of movement outcomes are equivalent whether undertaken by a modified Boyd-Anderson or a single anterior incision approach [17].…”

“…However, it is now widely reported that range of movement outcomes are equivalent whether undertaken by a modified Boyd-Anderson or a single anterior incision approach [17]. Grewal, et al [10] randomised control of the study, and in interpretation of the results. PG, MB & AM prepared data from follow up.…”

Best approach for the repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures

“…With great interest we have read the article of Grewal and colleagues [1] . We have however, some comments on this trial and think that the conclusions of this article should be interpreted in this light.…”

“…However, the best approach for repair (single vs double incision) is still subject of debate. Grewal et al [1] recently presented the results of the largest randomized clinical trial evaluating two different surgical approaches for the repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures. In this great piece of research were 91 acute distal biceps tendon ruptures randomized between a single incision repair with use of suture anchors (n = 47) or double incision repair with use of transosseous drill holes (n = 44).…”

“…This raises the question whether the presented differences between the groups (number of complications and especially the isometric flexion strength) is related to different approach used, or to the difference in fixation technique used. The article of Grewal et al [1] suggests the first, though it can not be ruled out that the latter might be of even or greater importance. Previous studies [4,5] concluded that suture anchor repair is a stronger fixation technique than transosseous drill holes.…”