Surgical outcomes and complications following distal biceps tendon reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary repair of chronic distal biceps tendon ruptures may not be possible because of tendon retraction, and there remains no clear consensus on the type of reconstruction technique used. The purpose of this study was to report the clinical outcomes and complication rates following reconstruction of chronic distal biceps tendon ruptures. METHODS: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. The following databases were searched: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary outcomes of interest included range of motion, strength, and functional outcome scores. Secondary outcomes included complication, reoperation, and revision rates. Outcomes and complication rates of each graft type and fixation technique were aggregated and compared with nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank and rank sum tests. Spearman rank coefficients were calculated for time from injury to surgery on all outcomes. RESULTS: There were no significant differences found between the graft type or fixation technique for postoperative range of motion, strength, and patient-reported outcomes. Postoperative complications were substantially higher in the autograft group (34%) as compared to the allograft group (14%). The fixation technique used also demonstrated a significantly increased complication rate in the weave group compared with the onlay group (34% and 9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results do not reveal any statistically significant differences between groups in the primary outcomes. However, substantially higher complication rates were observed in the autograft and weave cohorts; more than half of the complications related to the use of autograft were associated with donor site morbidity. No specific graft type was identified as superior, although this may be due to the small patient numbers included within this study.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".