Distal biceps tendon rupture: An in vitro study

Dave R. Shukla, Bernard F. Morrey, Andrew R. Thoreson, Kai Nan An, Shawn W. O'Driscoll

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Options for repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures are well-described. However, scant data exist in the literature regarding failure strength of the native tendon. We hypothesize that a) the distal biceps tendon failure strength is sensitive to loading angle, and b) the failure strength is greater than what has been previously reported in the literature. Methods: 15 radii were potted in a simulated supine position, and the native tendon was pulled from the tuberosity at angles of 90, 60, and 30° of flexion (5 per group) relative to the long axis of the radius. The failure load and stiffness were recorded and compared. Findings: The native tendon's mean failure load tended to increase as flexion angle decreased. Due to the large variability in strength, mean failure loads of the 90° (mean 358 (SE 117 N)), 60° (mean 617 (SE 141 N)), and 30° (mean 762 (SE 130 N)) groups were not statistically different from each other (P = 0.12). The mean stiffness results for each group (mean 501 (SE 176 N/mm), mean 763 (SE 226 N/mm), and mean 756 N (SE 179 N/mm), respectively) were not significantly different from each other (P > 0.6). Interpretation: The load to failure of the distal biceps tendon may be higher than what has previously been reported, and may be dependent on the elbow flexion angle. Though this difference may be attributed to the difference in methodology it should be taken into account during consideration of repair and rehabilitation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)263-267
Number of pages5
JournalClinical Biomechanics
Volume27
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2012

Fingerprint

Tendons
Rupture
Supine Position
Elbow
In Vitro Techniques
Rehabilitation

Keywords

  • Biceps failure
  • Distal biceps tendon
  • Tendon repair
  • Tendon rupture

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Biophysics

Cite this

Shukla, D. R., Morrey, B. F., Thoreson, A. R., An, K. N., & O'Driscoll, S. W. (2012). Distal biceps tendon rupture: An in vitro study. Clinical Biomechanics, 27(3), 263-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.09.010

Distal biceps tendon rupture : An in vitro study. / Shukla, Dave R.; Morrey, Bernard F.; Thoreson, Andrew R.; An, Kai Nan; O'Driscoll, Shawn W.

In: Clinical Biomechanics, Vol. 27, No. 3, 03.2012, p. 263-267.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shukla, DR, Morrey, BF, Thoreson, AR, An, KN & O'Driscoll, SW 2012, 'Distal biceps tendon rupture: An in vitro study', Clinical Biomechanics, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 263-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.09.010
Shukla DR, Morrey BF, Thoreson AR, An KN, O'Driscoll SW. Distal biceps tendon rupture: An in vitro study. Clinical Biomechanics. 2012 Mar;27(3):263-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.09.010
Shukla, Dave R. ; Morrey, Bernard F. ; Thoreson, Andrew R. ; An, Kai Nan ; O'Driscoll, Shawn W. / Distal biceps tendon rupture : An in vitro study. In: Clinical Biomechanics. 2012 ; Vol. 27, No. 3. pp. 263-267.
@article{10e59096bdc345679488e1e5e846ed5c,
title = "Distal biceps tendon rupture: An in vitro study",
abstract = "Background: Options for repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures are well-described. However, scant data exist in the literature regarding failure strength of the native tendon. We hypothesize that a) the distal biceps tendon failure strength is sensitive to loading angle, and b) the failure strength is greater than what has been previously reported in the literature. Methods: 15 radii were potted in a simulated supine position, and the native tendon was pulled from the tuberosity at angles of 90, 60, and 30° of flexion (5 per group) relative to the long axis of the radius. The failure load and stiffness were recorded and compared. Findings: The native tendon's mean failure load tended to increase as flexion angle decreased. Due to the large variability in strength, mean failure loads of the 90° (mean 358 (SE 117 N)), 60° (mean 617 (SE 141 N)), and 30° (mean 762 (SE 130 N)) groups were not statistically different from each other (P = 0.12). The mean stiffness results for each group (mean 501 (SE 176 N/mm), mean 763 (SE 226 N/mm), and mean 756 N (SE 179 N/mm), respectively) were not significantly different from each other (P > 0.6). Interpretation: The load to failure of the distal biceps tendon may be higher than what has previously been reported, and may be dependent on the elbow flexion angle. Though this difference may be attributed to the difference in methodology it should be taken into account during consideration of repair and rehabilitation.",
keywords = "Biceps failure, Distal biceps tendon, Tendon repair, Tendon rupture",
author = "Shukla, {Dave R.} and Morrey, {Bernard F.} and Thoreson, {Andrew R.} and An, {Kai Nan} and O'Driscoll, {Shawn W.}",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.09.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "27",
pages = "263--267",
journal = "Clinical Biomechanics",
issn = "0268-0033",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Distal biceps tendon rupture

T2 - An in vitro study

AU - Shukla, Dave R.

AU - Morrey, Bernard F.

AU - Thoreson, Andrew R.

AU - An, Kai Nan

AU - O'Driscoll, Shawn W.

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - Background: Options for repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures are well-described. However, scant data exist in the literature regarding failure strength of the native tendon. We hypothesize that a) the distal biceps tendon failure strength is sensitive to loading angle, and b) the failure strength is greater than what has been previously reported in the literature. Methods: 15 radii were potted in a simulated supine position, and the native tendon was pulled from the tuberosity at angles of 90, 60, and 30° of flexion (5 per group) relative to the long axis of the radius. The failure load and stiffness were recorded and compared. Findings: The native tendon's mean failure load tended to increase as flexion angle decreased. Due to the large variability in strength, mean failure loads of the 90° (mean 358 (SE 117 N)), 60° (mean 617 (SE 141 N)), and 30° (mean 762 (SE 130 N)) groups were not statistically different from each other (P = 0.12). The mean stiffness results for each group (mean 501 (SE 176 N/mm), mean 763 (SE 226 N/mm), and mean 756 N (SE 179 N/mm), respectively) were not significantly different from each other (P > 0.6). Interpretation: The load to failure of the distal biceps tendon may be higher than what has previously been reported, and may be dependent on the elbow flexion angle. Though this difference may be attributed to the difference in methodology it should be taken into account during consideration of repair and rehabilitation.

AB - Background: Options for repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures are well-described. However, scant data exist in the literature regarding failure strength of the native tendon. We hypothesize that a) the distal biceps tendon failure strength is sensitive to loading angle, and b) the failure strength is greater than what has been previously reported in the literature. Methods: 15 radii were potted in a simulated supine position, and the native tendon was pulled from the tuberosity at angles of 90, 60, and 30° of flexion (5 per group) relative to the long axis of the radius. The failure load and stiffness were recorded and compared. Findings: The native tendon's mean failure load tended to increase as flexion angle decreased. Due to the large variability in strength, mean failure loads of the 90° (mean 358 (SE 117 N)), 60° (mean 617 (SE 141 N)), and 30° (mean 762 (SE 130 N)) groups were not statistically different from each other (P = 0.12). The mean stiffness results for each group (mean 501 (SE 176 N/mm), mean 763 (SE 226 N/mm), and mean 756 N (SE 179 N/mm), respectively) were not significantly different from each other (P > 0.6). Interpretation: The load to failure of the distal biceps tendon may be higher than what has previously been reported, and may be dependent on the elbow flexion angle. Though this difference may be attributed to the difference in methodology it should be taken into account during consideration of repair and rehabilitation.

KW - Biceps failure

KW - Distal biceps tendon

KW - Tendon repair

KW - Tendon rupture

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84858339790&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84858339790&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.09.010

DO - 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.09.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 22030096

AN - SCOPUS:84858339790

VL - 27

SP - 263

EP - 267

JO - Clinical Biomechanics

JF - Clinical Biomechanics

SN - 0268-0033

IS - 3

ER -