The American journal of sports medicine · 2015
Distal biceps brachii tendon repairs: a single-incision technique using a cortical button with interference screw versus a double-incision technique using suture fixation through bone tunnels.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shields Edward, Olsen Joshua R, Williams Richard B, Rouse Lucien, Maloney Michael, Voloshin Ilya
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Distal biceps brachii tendon repairs performed with a tension slide technique using a cortical button (CB) and interference screw are stronger than those based on suture fixation through bone tunnels (BTs) in biomechanical studies. However, clinical comparison of these 2 techniques is lacking in the literature.
PURPOSE: To perform a clinical comparison of the single-incision CB and double-incision BT techniques.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS: Distal biceps tendon ruptures repaired through either the single-incision CB or double-incision BT technique were retrospectively identified at a single institution. Patients>1 year out from surgery were assessed for range of motion, strength, and complications, and they completed a DASH questionnaire (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand).
RESULTS: Patients in the CB group (n=20) were older (52±9.5 vs 43.7±8.7 years; P=.008), had a shorter interval from surgery to evaluation (17.7±5 vs 30.8±16.5 months; P=.001), and were less likely to smoke (0% vs 28.5%; P=.02) compared with the BT patients (n=21). DASH scores were similar between groups (4.46±4.4 [CB] vs 5.7±7.5 [BT]; P=.65). Multivariate analysis revealed no differences in range of motion or strength between groups. More CB patients (30%; n=6) experienced a complication compared with those in the BT group (4.8%; n=1) (P=.04), and these complications were predominantly paresthesias of the superficial radial nerve that did not resolve. There were no reoperations or repair failures in either group.
CONCLUSION: Both the single-incision CB and double-incision BT techniques provided excellent clinical results. Complications were more common in the single-incision CB group and most commonly involved paresthesias of the superficial radial nerve.
PURPOSE: To perform a clinical comparison of the single-incision CB and double-incision BT techniques.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS: Distal biceps tendon ruptures repaired through either the single-incision CB or double-incision BT technique were retrospectively identified at a single institution. Patients>1 year out from surgery were assessed for range of motion, strength, and complications, and they completed a DASH questionnaire (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand).
RESULTS: Patients in the CB group (n=20) were older (52±9.5 vs 43.7±8.7 years; P=.008), had a shorter interval from surgery to evaluation (17.7±5 vs 30.8±16.5 months; P=.001), and were less likely to smoke (0% vs 28.5%; P=.02) compared with the BT patients (n=21). DASH scores were similar between groups (4.46±4.4 [CB] vs 5.7±7.5 [BT]; P=.65). Multivariate analysis revealed no differences in range of motion or strength between groups. More CB patients (30%; n=6) experienced a complication compared with those in the BT group (4.8%; n=1) (P=.04), and these complications were predominantly paresthesias of the superficial radial nerve that did not resolve. There were no reoperations or repair failures in either group.
CONCLUSION: Both the single-incision CB and double-incision BT techniques provided excellent clinical results. Complications were more common in the single-incision CB group and most commonly involved paresthesias of the superficial radial nerve.