Surgical Results of Chronic Distal Biceps Ruptures: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distal biceps tendon tears can cause weakness and fatigue with activities requiring elbow flexion and supination. Surgical management of chronic tears (>21 days) is not well described in the literature. PURPOSE: To determine the clinical outcomes of chronic distal biceps repairs and reconstructions. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We performed a search of Medline (PubMed and Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL physical therapy, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed Central from inception until September 29, 2020, to identify articles on chronic distal biceps ruptures. The inclusion criteria were studies with at least 1 outcome measure and 10 patients with chronic distal biceps ruptures treated surgically. The quality of the included studies was assessed with the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) score. Functional outcomes and complications were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were included after systematic database screenings. The MINORS scores ranged from 5 to 19. There were a total of 1704 distal biceps ruptures, of which 1270 were acute and 434 were chronic. Average follow-up time was 12 months to 5.1 years. Single-incision (n = 3), 2-incision (n = 2), or both (n = 6) surgical techniques were used in these studies. Four studies described the use of autografts, and 4 articles used allografts in the chronic repair. Range of motion, function, and strength outcomes were similar when compared with the contralateral arm. Pain was reduced to minimal levels. Main postoperative complications were of paresthesia (specifically to the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve), which were temporary in 69.1% of cases. CONCLUSION: The results of this review indicate that surgical management of chronic distal biceps ruptures demonstrates improvement in outcomes including pain reduction and functional ability. Although there may be a slightly higher immediate complication rate, the functional outcomes remain comparable with those seen in the patient population with acute distal biceps.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".