van der Vis Jacqueline, Janssen Stein J, Haverlag Robert, van den Bekerom Michel P J
Department of Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shoulder and Elbow Unit, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018 Nov;138(11):1541-1548. doi: 10.1007/s00402-018-3018-6. Epub 2018 Aug 1.
To asses physical function and quality of life after distal biceps tendon repair and compare suture anchor and cortical button fixation. Secondarily, we assessed the impact of other factors: acute repair, graft use, concomitant arm conditions, contralateral rupture, and complications.
We approached all 50 patients that underwent distal biceps tendon rupture repair (2009-2016) to participate in our study and complete a questionnaire including: patient demographics, QuickDASH, Quality of life EQ-5D-5L, pain score, and Mayo Elbow Performance score (MEPS).
In total, 37 (76%) of 49 alive patients participated in our study. All were men, with a median age of 47 years. Median follow-up was 34 months (range 8-100 months). On average, we found perfect upper extremity (QuickDASH, median: 0, IQR 0-7.9; 53% had no [QuickDASH = 0] upper extremity disability) and elbow function (MEPS, median: 100, IQR 100-100; 83% had perfect [MEPS > 90] clinical elbow function), perfect quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, median: 1, IQR 0.85-1; 59% had perfect [EQ-5D-5L = 1] quality of life), and no pain (median 0, IQR 0-0; 68% had no pain). We found no difference in upper extremity (QuickDASH: anchor, median 1.1, IQR 0-6.8; endobutton, median 0, IQR 0-9.1, p = 0.972) and elbow (MEPS: anchor, median 100, IQR 100-100; endobutton, median 100, IQR 100-100, p = 0.895) function, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L: anchor, median 1, IQR 0.85-1; endobutton, median 1, IQR 0.84-1, p = 0.507), and pain score (anchor, median 0, IQR 0-0.5; endobutton, median 0, IQR 0-0, p = 0.742) when comparing the anchor to endobutton fixation technique.
Overall, patients have excellent outcome after distal biceps tendon rupture repair. There was no difference in patient-reported outcome measures between suture anchor and endobutton fixation.
Level III, retrospective comparative study.
评估肱二头肌远端肌腱修复后的身体功能和生活质量，并比较缝线锚钉和皮质纽扣固定方法。其次，我们评估了其他因素的影响：急性修复、移植物使用、合并的手臂疾病、对侧断裂和并发症。
我们联系了所有50例接受肱二头肌远端肌腱断裂修复的患者（2009 - 2016年），邀请他们参与我们的研究并完成一份问卷，问卷内容包括：患者人口统计学信息、QuickDASH、生活质量EQ - 5D - 5L、疼痛评分和梅奥肘关节功能评分（MEPS）。
49例存活患者中共有37例（76%）参与了我们的研究。所有患者均为男性，中位年龄47岁。中位随访时间为34个月（范围8 - 100个月）。平均而言，我们发现上肢功能（QuickDASH评分，中位数：0；四分位间距0 - 7.9；53%无[QuickDASH = 0]上肢残疾）和肘关节功能（MEPS评分，中位数：100；四分位间距100 - 100；83%具有完美的[MEPS > 90]临床肘关节功能）良好，生活质量（EQ - 5D - 5L评分，中位数：1；四分位间距0.85 - 1；59%具有完美的[EQ - 5D - 5L = 1]生活质量）良好且无疼痛（中位数0；四分位间距0 - 0；68%无疼痛）。比较缝线锚钉和皮质纽扣固定技术时，我们发现在上肢（QuickDASH评分：锚钉组，中位数1.1，四分位间距0 - 6.8；皮质纽扣组中位数0，四分位间距0 - 9.1，p = 0.972）、肘关节（MEPS评分：锚钉组，中位数100，四分位间距100 - 100；皮质纽扣组，中位数100，四分位间距100 - 100，p = 0.895）功能、生活质量（EQ - 5D - 5L评分：锚钉组，中位数1，四分位间距0.85 - 1；皮质纽扣组，中位数1，四分位间距0.84 - 1，p = 0.507）和疼痛评分（锚钉组，中位数0，四分位间距0 - 0.5；皮质纽扣组中位数0，四分位间距0 - 0，p = 0.742）方面没有差异。
总体而言肱二头肌远端肌腱断裂修复术后患者预后良好。缝线锚钉和皮质纽扣固定在患者报告的结局指标上没有差异。
III级回顾性比较研究。
