Evaluation of clinical tests for partial distal biceps tendon ruptures and tendinitis

Background: The clinical diagnosis of partial distal biceps tendon ruptures or tendinosis can be challenging. Three clinical tests have been described to aid in an accurate and timely diagnosis: biceps provocation test, tilt sign, and resisted hook test. However, not much is known about the sensitivity, specificity, and inter-rater reliability as the available evaluations are based on small groups or are case based. Furthermore, these tests have not been compared together in the same patient group. Methods: Two dedicated elbow surgeons each included 20 consecutive patients in whom distal biceps tendon pathology was suspected. Patients with a complete distal biceps tendon tear were excluded. As a control, the same number of consecutive patients with various elbow pathologies other than distal biceps tendon problems was included. All 3 tests were performed both in control patients and in patients with suspected biceps tendon pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the flexion-abduction-supination view and/or surgical exploration was performed in both groups. The findings of the clinical tests were determined before the results of MRI and other technical investigations were analyzed. The values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated. Results: The combined sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values for the biceps provocation test were 95%, 97%, and 96%, respectively. For the resisted hook test, the combined values were 78%, 76%, and 77%, respectively. The combined values for the tilt sign were 58%, 55%, and 56%, respectively. When the biceps provocation test and the resisted hook test were combined in a parallel testing setup, the sensitivity increased to 98% whereas the specificity was 73%. The sensitivity and specificity of the biceps provocation test and the tilt sign in a parallel testing setup were 97% and 53%, respectively. Finally, the sensitivity and specificity of the tilt sign and the resisted hook test in a parallel testing setup were 90% and 41%, respectively. Conclusions: The biceps provocation test yielded higher accuracy than the resisted hook test and the tilt sign. When the biceps provocation test and the resisted hook test were combined, the sensitivity increased to 98%. We advise integration of these tests in daily practice to minimize delays in the diagnosis of partial distal biceps tendon ruptures, distal biceps tendon bursitis, or tendinosis. MRI in the flexion-abduction-supination view is still advised to distinguish between a partial biceps tendon rupture and tendinosis or bursitis at the distal biceps tendon insertion as this may influence further treatment

Evaluation of clinical tests for partial distal biceps tendon ruptures and tendinitis

Background: The clinical diagnosis of partial distal biceps tendon ruptures or tendinosis can be challenging. Three clinical tests have been described to aid in an accurate and timely diagnosis: biceps provocation test, tilt sign, and resisted hook test. However, not much is known about the sensitivity, specificity, and inter-rater reliability as the available evaluations are based on small groups or are case based. Furthermore, these tests have not been compared together in the same patient group. Methods: Two dedicated elbow surgeons each included 20 consecutive patients in whom distal biceps tendon pathology was suspected. Patients with a complete distal biceps tendon tear were excluded. As a control, the same number of consecutive patients with various elbow pathologies other than distal biceps tendon problems was included. All 3 tests were performed both in control patients and in patients with suspected biceps tendon pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the flexion-abduction-supination view and/or surgical exploration was performed in both groups. The findings of the clinical tests were determined before the results of MRI and other technical investigations were analyzed. The values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated. Results: The combined sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values for the biceps provocation test were 95%, 97%, and 96%, respectively. For the resisted hook test, the combined values were 78%, 76%, and 77%, respectively. The combined values for the tilt sign were 58%, 55%, and 56%, respectively. When the biceps provocation test and the resisted hook test were combined in a parallel testing setup, the sensitivity increased to 98% whereas the specificity was 73%. The sensitivity and specificity of the biceps provocation test and the tilt sign in a parallel testing setup were 97% and 53%, respectively. Finally, the sensitivity and specificity of the tilt sign and the resisted hook test in a parallel testing setup were 90% and 41%, respectively. Conclusions: The biceps provocation test yielded higher accuracy than the resisted hook test and the tilt sign. When the biceps provocation test and the resisted hook test were combined, the sensitivity increased to 98%. We advise integration of these tests in daily practice to minimize delays in the diagnosis of partial distal biceps tendon ruptures, distal biceps tendon bursitis, or tendinosis. MRI in the flexion-abduction-supination view is still advised to distinguish between a partial biceps tendon rupture and tendinosis or bursitis at the distal biceps tendon insertion as this may influence further treatment