MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174482383 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.20.02047

Is Immobilization Necessary for Early Return to Work Following Distal Biceps Repair Using a Cortical Button Technique?

2021· article· en· W3174482383 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Bergman, Anelise Silveira, Robert Chan, Michael Lapner, Kevin A. Hildebrand, Ian L. D. Le, David M Sheps, Lauren A Beaupré, Aleem Lalani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElbow and Forearm Trauma Treatment
Canadian institutionsSturgeon Community HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBicepsRange of motionBiceps tendonTendonSurgeryRandomized controlled trialSling (weapon)MobilizationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Improvements in surgical fixation to repair distal biceps tendon ruptures have not fully translated to earlier postoperative mobilization; it is unknown whether earlier mobilization affords earlier functional return to work. This parallel-arm randomized controlled trial compared the impact of early mobilization versus 6 weeks of postoperative immobilization following distal biceps tendon repair. METHODS: One hundred and one male participants with a distal biceps tendon rupture that was amenable to a primary repair with use of a cortical button were randomized to early mobilization (self-weaning from sling and performance of active range of motion as tolerated during first 6 weeks) (n = 49) or 6 weeks of immobilization (splinting for 6 weeks with no active range of motion) (n = 52). Follow-up assessments were performed by a blinded assessor at 2 and 6 weeks and at 3, 6, and 12 months. At 12 months, distal biceps tendon integrity was verified with ultrasound. The primary outcome was return to work. Secondary outcomes were pain, range of motion, strength, shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH) score, and tendon integrity. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. A linear mixed model for repeated measures was used to compare pain, range of motion, strength, and QuickDASH between the groups over time; return to work was assessed with use of independent t tests. RESULTS: The groups were similar preoperatively (p ≥ 0.16). The average age (and standard deviation) was 44.7 ± 8.6 years. Eighty-three participants (82%) were followed to 12 months. There were no differences between the groups in terms of return to work (p ≥ 0.83). Participants in the early mobilization group had significantly more passive forearm supination (p = 0.04), with passive forearm pronation (p = 0.06) and active extension and supination (p = 0.09) trending toward significantly greater range of motion in the early mobilization group relative to the immobilization group. Participants in the early mobilization group had significantly better QuickDASH scores over time than those in the immobilization group (p = 0.02). There were no differences between the groups in terms of pain (p ≥ 0.45), active range of motion (p ≥ 0.09), or strength (p ≥ 0.70). Two participants (2.0%, 1 in each group) had full-thickness tears on ultrasound at 12 months (p = 0.61). Compliance was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Early motion after distal biceps tendon repair with cortical button fixation is well tolerated and does not appear to be associated with adverse outcomes. No clinically important group differences were seen. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicElbow and Forearm Trauma TreatmentFrench-language works237,207