PURPOSE:
The reported incidence of postoperative complications after distal biceps tendon repairs (DBTRs) has been determined largely by retrospective studies. We hypothesized that a large prospective cohort study of DBTRs would demonstrate increased complication rates relative to existing literature values. Secondarily, we hypothesized that most complications would be transient and self-limiting, regardless of the surgical technique employed for the repair.

METHODS:
Consecutive patients undergoing acute, primary DBTR from July 2016 to December 2017 were enrolled. The repair technique, postoperative protocol, and follow-up intervals were determined by the individual surgeons' protocols. Demographic information, surgical data, and complications were tabulated prospectively. Exclusion criteria included chronic DBTRs, secondary DBTRs requiring allograft, DBTRs of partial tears, and postoperative follow-up of less than 12 weeks. We included 212 repairs performed by 37 orthopedic surgeons in 3 different subspecialties.

RESULTS:
Sixty-five patients (30.7%) had 73 complications. Fifty patients (44.6%) in the 1-incision group experienced complications compared with 15 (15.0%) in the 2-incision group. Sixty patients (28.3%) developed a minor complication. Fifty-seven patients (26.9%) had sensory neurapraxias, 47 after a 1-incision procedure and 10 after a 2-incision procedure, a statistically significant difference. Of the patients with neurapraxias, 94.7% were resolved or improving at the time of the latest follow-up. Five patients (2.4%) developed a major complication, defined as a return to the operating room in the postoperative period due to deep infection or rerupture.

CONCLUSIONS:
The complication rate after DBTR appears to be higher than 2 other retrospective studies and is predominantly in the form of transient neurapraxias. This study confirms that there is a higher complication rate in 1-incision techniques as compared with 2-incision techniques.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
Therapeutic II.



Polls results
1

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
92% Article relates to my practice (61/66)
4% Article does not relate to my practice (3/66)
3% Undecided (2/66)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

62% Yes (41/66)
30% No (20/66)
7% Undecided (5/66)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/66)
98% No (65/66)
1% Undecided (1/66)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

6% Level 1 (4/66)
68% Level 2 (45/66)
18% Level 3 (12/66)
6% Level 4 (4/66)
1% Level 5 (1/66)