Comparison of Home Therapy vs Formal Outpatient Physical Therapy in Post-Operative Management of Two-Incision Distal Bicep Tendon Repair

Background: Distal bicep tendon tears are a relatively uncommon injury, affecting 1.2/ 100,000 persons per year; they can also cause substantial loss in supination and flexion strength. The most common treatment is a double incision distal bicep tendon repair, which involves surgical reinsertion of the bicep tendon onto the radial tuberosity. Following surgery, physicians have traditionally recommended the patient undergo 5-12 weeks of formal outpatient physical therapy. This can be a significant cost and time burden to the patient. Therefore, some physicians have instead opted for home physical therapy, in which the patient is given instructions on exercises to complete at home and is followed up with periodically. There is currently a lack of evidence regarding any added benefit of formal physical therapy following distal bicep tendon repairs. Therefore, the goal of our study is to assess how home therapy compares with formal physical therapy in post-operative management of two-incision distal biceps tendon repair. Methods: We achieve this through a retrospective chart review of 366 Rothman double incision bicep tendon repair patients who received either formal or home therapy post-operatively. We will compare them on the basis of complication rate, graft status, reoperation status, and range of motion. Results: Results are pending, but we hypothesize that post-operative management by home therapy is similar to that by formal outpatient physical therapy in outcomes and rate of complications. Discussion: This finding could result in significant decrease in cost and increase in satisfaction for patients recovering from bicep tendon repair surgery

Outcomes of chronic distal biceps reconstruction with tendon grafting: a matched comparison with primary repair.

Background: The purpose of this analysis was to analyze outcomes of distal biceps reconstruction with soft tissue allograft in the setting of chronic, irreparable distal biceps ruptures. The outcomes of these cases were then compared with a matched cohort of distal biceps ruptures that were able to be repaired primarily. Methods: Retrospective review of an institutional elbow surgery database was conducted. All cases of distal biceps repairs were identified by Common Procedural Terminology, ICD-9, and ICD-10 codes from January 2009 to March 2018. A direct review of operative reports was then conducted to identify which cases required allograft reconstruction. After identification of this population, a 2:1 manually matched cohort of patients who underwent primary repair was generated using age, gender, body mass index, and age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index. Finally, the allograft reconstruction and matched primary repair cohorts were compared for reoperation, range of motion, and patient-reported outcomes scores. Results: There were 46 male patients who underwent distal biceps reconstruction with allograft (14 Achilles tendon, 32 semitendinosus) and they were matched to 92 male patients that underwent primary distal biceps repair. Mean patient age (46.9 ± 10.3 vs. 47.0 ± 9.8 years, P = .95), BMI (31.3 ± 5.3 vs. 31.3 ± 4.8 kg/m2, P = .60), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.2 ± 1.1 vs. 1.3 ± 0.9, P = .64) were similar between allograft reconstruction and primary repair groups. Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (7.4 ± 18.0 vs. 1.6 ± 4.1, P = .23), Mayo Elbow Performance Score (92.1 ± 19.7 vs. 97.3 ± 6.4, P = .36), and Oxford Elbow Score (43.4 ± 11.0 vs. 46.8 ± 3.2, P = .25) were not significantly different between groups at mean 5.1 years (range, 1.5-10.9 years) after surgery. There were 1 of 42 (2.2%) allograft patients who require revision compared with 3 of 92 (3.3%, P = .719) in the primary repair group. In addition, one primary repair required reoperation for scar tissue excision and lateral antebrachial cutaneous neurolysis. Final range of motion data (twelve-week follow-up) for the allograft reconstruction group was similar to primary repair group in flexion (136.1° ± 5.3° vs. 135.9° ± 2.7°, P = .81), extension (0.8° ± 2.9° vs. 0.4° ± 1.7°, P = .53), pronation (78.0° ± 9.0° vs. 76.4° ± 15.4°, P = .50), supination (77.4° ± 10.7° vs. 77.5° ± 11.9°, P = .96). Conclusion: Patients who underwent distal biceps reconstruction with a graft had similar failure rates, reoperation rates, final range of motion, and patient-reported outcomes scores as those treated without a graft. Patients can be consulted that direct repair in the acute setting is preferred; however, even in the setting of a distal biceps reconstruction with graft augmentation, they can expect low complications and good functional results