Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2022 Sep;80(3):270-276.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review and analyze the current evidence in the literature to determine the relative complication rates of the singleincision versus dual-incision approach to distal biceps tendon repair.
METHODS: The literature search was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Cohort studies comparing the single-incision or dual-incision approach to biceps tendon repair alone were included. Clinical outcomes were compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager Version 5.3. A p-value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
RESULTS: Twelve clinical studies with varying levels of evidence (LOE I: 1, LOE II: 1, LOE III: 10) with 2,429 patients were included. Overall, there was a significantly lower rate of total complications with the dual-incision approach (16.1% vs. 23.1%, p < 0.01) and a lower rate of neurological injuries (9.1% vs. 24.1%, p < 0.01). There was a lower rate of lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve injuries with the dual-incision approach (5.2% vs. 19.5%, p < 0.01), and superficial radial nerve injuries (2.5% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.01), but there was no significant difference in the rate of posterior interosseous nerve injuries (2.2% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.20). There was a significantly lower rate of heterotopic bone formation with the single-incision approach (1.3% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: The dual-incision approach decreases the risk of total, overall postoperative complications and sensory nerve injuries following distal biceps repair. However, it has a higher risk of heterotopic bone formation.
PMID:36030447
