Kallhovd Gard, Lie Stein Atle, Schrama Johannes Cornelis, Høvding Pål, Krukhaug Yngvar
Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Shoulder Elbow. 2025 Jul 7:17585732251352745. doi: 10.1177/17585732251352745.
Single-incision (SI) and double-incision (DI) techniques are used for acute distal biceps tendon rupture repair. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study with follow-up was to examine if there is a difference between the techniques on early- and long-term outcomes.
Hospital records from Haukeland University Hospital, Norway, (2007-2017) involving acute distal biceps tendon rupture repair matching inclusion criteria were analysed. Follow-up included assessing symptomatic and functional outcome, quality-of-life outcome (QuickDASH and EQ-5D), visual assessment scale (pain), and subjective health score. A smoking history was obtained.
We included 102 elbows in 100 patients, 99 males. Overall early complication rate was higher for the SI technique compared to the DI technique (25/43 vs. 11/58; < 0.001). Long-term complications showed no statistically significant difference between the SI and DI technique (12/43 vs. 8/58; = 0.078). The pronation range of motion favoured the SI technique compared to the DI technique (89.3° vs. 85.1°; = 0.014). Supination strength favoured the DI technique compared to the SI technique (98.7 vs. 94.5; = 0.030). Supination strength favoured non-smokers compared to former smokers (99.5 vs. 93.2; = 0.009). The two techniques had similar quality-of-life outcomes.
The DI technique has a lower risk of short-term complications. Both techniques have comparable symptomatic, functional, and quality-of-life long-term outcomes.
单切口（SI）和双切口（DI）技术用于急性肱二头肌远端肌腱断裂修复。本项有随访的回顾性队列研究旨在探讨这两种技术在早期和长期疗效上是否存在差异。
分析了挪威豪克兰大学医院（2007 - 2017年）符合纳入标准的急性肱二头肌远端肌腱断裂修复的医院记录。随访包括评估症状和功能结果、生活质量结果（QuickDASH和EQ - 5D）、视觉评估量表（疼痛）和主观健康评分。获取吸烟史。
我们纳入了100例患者的102个肘部，其中男性99例。与DI技术相比，SI技术的总体早期并发症发生率更高（25/43 vs. 11/58；<0.001）。SI和DI技术在长期并发症方面无统计学显著差异（12/43 vs. 8/58；=0.078）。与DI技术相比，旋前活动范围更有利于SI技术（89.3° vs. 85.1°；=0.014）。与SI技术相比，旋后力量更有利于DI技术（98.7 vs. 94.5；=0.030）。与既往吸烟者相比，旋后力量更有利于非吸烟者（99.5 vs. 93.2；=0.009）。两种技术的生活质量结果相似。
DI技术短期并发症风险较低。两种技术在症状、功能和生活质量长期疗效方面具有可比性。
