Functional outcome in patients who underwent distal biceps tendon repair

Introduction: To asses physical function and quality of life after distal biceps tendon repair and compare suture anchor and cortical button fixation. Secondarily, we assessed the impact of other factors: acute repair, graft use, concomitant arm conditions, contralateral rupture, and complications. Methods: We approached all 50 patients that underwent distal biceps tendon rupture repair (2009–2016) to participate in our study and complete a questionnaire including: patient demographics, QuickDASH, Quality of life EQ-5D-5L, pain score, and Mayo Elbow Performance score (MEPS). Results: In total, 37 (76%) of 49 alive patients participated in our study. All were men, with a median age of 47 years. Median follow-up was 34 months (range 8–100 months). On average, we found perfect upper extremity (QuickDASH, median: 0, IQR 0–7.9; 53% had no [QuickDASH = 0] upper extremity disability) and elbow function (MEPS, median: 100, IQR 100–100; 83% had perfect [MEPS > 90] clinical elbow function), perfect quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, median: 1, IQR 0.85–1; 59% had perfect [EQ-5D-5L = 1] quality of life), and no pain (median 0, IQR 0–0; 68% had no pain). We found no difference in upper extremity (QuickDASH: anchor, median 1.1, IQR 0–6.8; endobutton, median 0, IQR 0–9.1, p = 0.972) and elbow (MEPS: anchor, median 100, IQR 100–100; endobutton, median 100, IQR 100–100, p = 0.895) function, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L: anchor, median 1, IQR 0.85–1; endobutton, median 1, IQR 0.84–1, p = 0.507), and pain score (anchor, median 0, IQR 0–0.5; endobutton, median 0, IQR 0–0, p = 0.742) when comparing the anchor to endobutton fixation technique. Conclusions: Overall, patients have excellent outcome after distal biceps tendon rupture repair. There was no difference in patient-reported outcome measures between suture anchor and endobutton fixation. Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study