Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the clinical indications of performing a revision distal biceps tendon repair/reconstruction, and there is even less data available on the clinical outcomes of patients after revision surgery. PURPOSE: To determine the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision distal biceps tendon repair/reconstruction and evaluate the causes of primary repair failure. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing ipsilateral primary and revision distal biceps tendon repair/reconstruction at a single institution. Between 2011 and 2016, a total of 277 patients underwent distal biceps tendon repair, with 8 patients requiring revision surgery. Patient characteristics, surgical technique, and patient-reported outcome scores (shortened version of Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand [QuickDASH], 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12], visual analog scale [VAS] for pain, and Mayo Elbow Performance Score [MEPS]), were assessed. Complications as well as indications for reoperation after primary and revision surgery were examined. RESULTS: The overall revision rate was 2.9%. The number of single- and double-incision techniques utilized were similar among the primary repairs (50% single-incision, 50% double-incision) and revision repairs/reconstructions (62.5% single-incision, 37.5% double-incision). Reasons for reoperation included continued pain and weakness (n = 7), limited range of motion (n = 2), and acute traumatic re-rupture (n = 1). The median duration between primary and revision surgery was 9.5 months (interquartile range [IQR], 5.8-12.8 months). Intraoperatively, the most common finding during revision was a partially ruptured, fibrotic distal tendon with extensive adhesions. At a median of 33.7 months after revision surgery (IQR, 21.7-40.7 months), the median QuickDASH was 12.5 (IQR, 1.7-23.3), MEPS was 92.5 (IQR, 80.0-100), SF-12 mental component measure was 53.4 (IQR, 47.6-58.2), SF-12 physical component measure was 52.1 (IQR, 36.9-55.4), and VAS for elbow pain was 1.0 (IQR, 0-2.0). Revision surgery had a complication rate of 37.5% (3 of 8 patients), consisting of persistent pain and weakness (2 patients; 25%) and numbness over the dorsal radial sensory nerve (1 patient; 12.5%). Two patients required reoperation (25% reoperation rate). CONCLUSION: The overall revision distal biceps repair/reconstruction rate was approximately 3%. While patients undergoing revision distal biceps repair demonstrated improved outcomes after revision surgery, these outcomes remained inferior to previously reported outcomes of patients undergoing only primary distal biceps repair.