Operative Versus Nonoperative Outcomes: A Cohort Study on Distal Biceps Tendon Rupture.

Dekker, Andrew; Niyam, Amanullah; Ishaq, A; Ashwood, Neil

Item

Operative Versus Nonoperative Outcomes: A Cohort Study on Distal Biceps Tendon Rupture.

Abstract

Background Distal biceps tendon ruptures typically occur in middle-aged men following eccentric loading activities. While surgical repair is common, comparative data on operative versus nonoperative outcomes remain limited. We conducted a retrospective study to compare the outcomes of operative versus nonoperative management in Queen's Hospital Burton. Methods We reviewed the records of 72 patients (52 operative, 20 nonoperative) treated during the period of 2016-2023 for complete distal biceps tendon ruptures. All diagnoses were confirmed clinically and radiologically. Operative management was via a single anterior incision or a modified two-incision technique using cortical button fixation. Complications, range of motion, and return to activity were abstracted from clinical records documented at the time of care. Validated outcome measures, such as the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), were not collected as part of routine care. Results Operative management was associated with a higher rate of complications, including nerve injuries and wound issues, though most patients ultimately regained a full range of motion and function. Nonoperative management resulted in minimal complications, with patients reporting return to their previous activity levels and only minor subjective strength deficits. Overall, operative repair offered greater strength recovery, particularly in supination, but at the cost of increased morbidity, whereas nonoperative management provided excellent functional outcomes with lower risk. Conclusion Nonoperative management appeared to be a reasonable option for selected patients in this cohort. Operative repair is effective but associated with a higher complication rate. Treatment should be individualised, balancing patient activity level, expectations, and risk profile.