Biomechanical Comparison of Two Surgical Repair Techniques of the Distal Biceps Tendon

This study aimed to characterize the relationship between the distal biceps tendon force and the supination and flexion rotations during the initiation phase and to compare the functional efficiency of anatomic versus nonanatomic repairs.

Seven matched pairs of fresh-frozen cadaver arms were dissected to expose the humerus and elbow while preserving the biceps brachii, elbow joint capsule, and distal radioulnar soft tissue complex. For each pair, the distal biceps tendon was severed with a scalpel and then repaired with bone tunnels placed at either the anterior (anatomic) or the posterior (nonanatomic) aspect of the bicipital tuberosity on the proximal radius. A supination test with 90° of elbow flexion and an unconstrained flexion test were conducted on a customized loading frame. The biceps tension was applied incrementally at 200 g per step, whereas the radius rotation was tracked with a 3-dimensional motion analysis system. The tendon force needed to produce a degree of supination or flexion was derived as the regression slope of the tendon force-radial rotation plots. A two-tailed paired t test was performed to compare the difference between the anatomic repair and the nonanatomic repair cadavers.

Significantly greater tendon force was required to initiate the first 10° of supination with the elbow in flexion for the nonanatomic group compared with the anatomic group (1.04 ± 0.44 N/degree vs 0.68 ± 0.17 N/degree, P = .02). The average nonanatomic to anatomic ratio was 149% ± 38%. No difference existed between the two groups in the mean tendon force needed to produce the degree of flexion.

Our results show that anatomic repair is more efficient in producing supination than nonanatomic repair, but only when the elbow is in 90° of flexion. When the elbow joint is not constrained, the nonanatomic supination efficiency improved, and the difference between the techniques was not significant.

The present study added to the body of evidence in comparing anatomic versus nonanatomic repair of the distal biceps tendon and serves as a foundation for future biomechanical and clinical studies in this topic. Given no difference when the elbow joint was not constrained, one could argue that surgeon comfort and preference could guide which technique to use when addressing the distal biceps tendon tears. More studies will be needed to clearly define whether there will be a clinical difference between the two techniques.