Outcome of Distal Biceps Tendon Repair With and Without Concomitant Bicipital Aponeurosis Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The bicipital aponeurosis (BA) can often be torn concomitantly with a distal biceps tendon (DBT) rupture. Its repair, although recommended by some, has not commonly been addressed during the surgical management of DBT ruptures, and to date, surgical repair of the BA with DBT repair has not been evaluated clinically. Purpose: To utilize subjective and objective outcome measures to examine the safety and efficacy of 2-incision DBT repair with and without repair of the BA in patients with a DBT rupture. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Demographic and surgical data were reviewed retrospectively. Patients returned to the clinic to complete subjective outcome measures and objective measurements of range of motion, strength, and biceps contour. All patients were evaluated at least 1 year after surgical treatment. Results: Data from 24 male patients with a DBT rupture were used for the analysis; 13 (54%) underwent concomitant DBT and BA repair, and 11 (46%) underwent isolated DBT repair. There were no complications at 1 year in either group. The DBT + BA repair group returned to recreational activities faster (77% within 6 months and 100% within 1 year) than the isolated DBT repair group (36% within 6 months, 91% within 1 year, and 100% after more than 2 years) ( P = .05). There was a trend toward better Patient-Rated Elbow Evaluation pain scores in the DBT + BA repair group than in the isolated DBT repair group (1.2 vs 5.3, respectively; P = .18). A trend also emerged toward closer return to subjective preinjury strength (77% vs 44%, respectively; P = .14). No significant difference emerged in patient satisfaction with the biceps contour, subjective scores on functional activities and disability, or objective measurements of strength, contour, and range of motion. Conclusion: This pilot study suggests that repair of the BA in conjunction with DBT repair leads to a faster return to recreational activities compared with isolated DBT repair. Also noted was a trend toward subjectively improved pain and greater perceived strength, after DBT + BA repair, although this was not statistically significant. Further investigation with a larger population is required to better elucidate these potential differences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".