Ultrasound assessment of distal biceps tendon injuries

IF 0.2 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS Current Orthopaedic Practice Pub Date : 2022-11-17 DOI:10.1097/BCO.0000000000001184
J. H. Dove, George J. Pasquarello, M. Dasilva
{"title":"Ultrasound assessment of distal biceps tendon injuries","authors":"J. H. Dove, George J. Pasquarello, M. Dasilva","doi":"10.1097/BCO.0000000000001184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Distal biceps tendon injuries occur mostly in men aged 40 to 60 yr. The mechanism of failure is eccentric load of the biceps muscle while it is in a flexed position. The diagnosis of a distal biceps tendon rupture often can be made clinically with complete patient history and thorough physical examination. Patients may report a painful “pop” while the elbow is forcibly extended. They will describe pain in the antecubital fossa and weakness in the elbow. On examination, the clinical test described by O’Driscoll et al. known as the “hook test” can diagnose complete ruptures, especially when the findings are compared with the uninjured contralateral side. Of note, Devereaux et al. combined three clinical tests to identify a complete rupture. By using the hook test, passive forearm pronation, and the biceps crease interval in sequence, they found those tests resulted in 100% sensitivity and specificity when the outcomes of all three were in agreement. Despite the information that can be gained from the physical examination, some cases may remain equivocal, and clinicians will use imaging studies to confirm the diagnosis of distal biceps tendon injuries. Radiographs will often appear normal, but ultrasound (US) and MRI provide more information. MRI is considered the gold standard in diagnosing injuries of the distal biceps tendon; however, the expense must be considered when determining which study to obtain. If ultrasound provides similar information for surgeons, its cost-effectiveness makes it an attractive first option. Several studies have demonstrated the effective use of ultrasound to diagnose distal biceps tendon injuries; however, ultrasound is operator-dependent. Classically, four different approaches to evaluate the distal biceps tendon exist: anterior, medial, lateral, and posterior. There is no consensus regarding the best approach, but rather, combined use of all approaches help enhance the accuracy of the evaluation. Despite this idea, Miller et al. reviewed the four different approaches to evaluate the distal biceps tendon using ultrasound and found that readers and operators significantly preferred the medial approach (P<0.001) among the others. Conversely, while describing a new method of ultrasound evaluation of the distal biceps tendon using the crab position, Draghi et al. stated that the anterior approach with the forearm pronated was the most commonly used. Obviously, operator preference and experience influence the preferred approach. The crab position places the elbow in flexion and forearm in pronation and allows for coverage of 75% of the elbow in a single position. After the evaluation of the common extensor tendon in the long axis, the transducer is turned 90 degrees and moved distally, allowing a view of the distal biceps tendon in the transverse plane. Use of ultrasound to evaluate the distal biceps tendon can be challenging, but using consistent steps and approaches, accurate assessment can be obtained. This article presents a simple and reproducible technique to evaluate the distal biceps tendon using ultrasound. Patient’s images were used after informed consent was obtained from the patient. Institutional review board approval was not required for the description of the authors’ technique.","PeriodicalId":10732,"journal":{"name":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","volume":"34 1","pages":"79 - 81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Orthopaedic Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0000000000001184","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Distal biceps tendon injuries occur mostly in men aged 40 to 60 yr. The mechanism of failure is eccentric load of the biceps muscle while it is in a flexed position. The diagnosis of a distal biceps tendon rupture often can be made clinically with complete patient history and thorough physical examination. Patients may report a painful “pop” while the elbow is forcibly extended. They will describe pain in the antecubital fossa and weakness in the elbow. On examination, the clinical test described by O’Driscoll et al. known as the “hook test” can diagnose complete ruptures, especially when the findings are compared with the uninjured contralateral side. Of note, Devereaux et al. combined three clinical tests to identify a complete rupture. By using the hook test, passive forearm pronation, and the biceps crease interval in sequence, they found those tests resulted in 100% sensitivity and specificity when the outcomes of all three were in agreement. Despite the information that can be gained from the physical examination, some cases may remain equivocal, and clinicians will use imaging studies to confirm the diagnosis of distal biceps tendon injuries. Radiographs will often appear normal, but ultrasound (US) and MRI provide more information. MRI is considered the gold standard in diagnosing injuries of the distal biceps tendon; however, the expense must be considered when determining which study to obtain. If ultrasound provides similar information for surgeons, its cost-effectiveness makes it an attractive first option. Several studies have demonstrated the effective use of ultrasound to diagnose distal biceps tendon injuries; however, ultrasound is operator-dependent. Classically, four different approaches to evaluate the distal biceps tendon exist: anterior, medial, lateral, and posterior. There is no consensus regarding the best approach, but rather, combined use of all approaches help enhance the accuracy of the evaluation. Despite this idea, Miller et al. reviewed the four different approaches to evaluate the distal biceps tendon using ultrasound and found that readers and operators significantly preferred the medial approach (P<0.001) among the others. Conversely, while describing a new method of ultrasound evaluation of the distal biceps tendon using the crab position, Draghi et al. stated that the anterior approach with the forearm pronated was the most commonly used. Obviously, operator preference and experience influence the preferred approach. The crab position places the elbow in flexion and forearm in pronation and allows for coverage of 75% of the elbow in a single position. After the evaluation of the common extensor tendon in the long axis, the transducer is turned 90 degrees and moved distally, allowing a view of the distal biceps tendon in the transverse plane. Use of ultrasound to evaluate the distal biceps tendon can be challenging, but using consistent steps and approaches, accurate assessment can be obtained. This article presents a simple and reproducible technique to evaluate the distal biceps tendon using ultrasound. Patient’s images were used after informed consent was obtained from the patient. Institutional review board approval was not required for the description of the authors’ technique.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
二头肌远端肌腱损伤的超声评估
二头肌远端肌腱损伤主要发生在40 - 60岁的男性中。其失效机制是二头肌屈曲时的偏心负荷。二头肌远端肌腱断裂的诊断通常可以通过完整的病史和彻底的体格检查在临床上做出。当肘部被强行伸展时,患者可能会报告疼痛的“砰”声。他们会描述肘前窝疼痛和肘部无力。在检查方面,O 'Driscoll等人描述的临床试验被称为“钩试验”,可以诊断完全破裂,特别是当结果与未受伤的对侧比较时。值得注意的是,Devereaux等人结合了三种临床试验来确定完全破裂。通过依次使用钩形试验、被动前臂旋前和肱二头肌折痕间隔,他们发现,当三者的结果一致时,这些试验的灵敏度和特异性均为100%。尽管可以从身体检查中获得信息,但有些病例可能仍然模棱两可,临床医生将使用影像学检查来确认远端二头肌肌腱损伤的诊断。x光片通常表现正常,但超声和MRI可提供更多信息。MRI被认为是诊断肱二头肌腱远端损伤的金标准;然而,在决定进行哪项研究时必须考虑费用。如果超声波为外科医生提供类似的信息,那么它的成本效益使其成为有吸引力的首选。一些研究已经证明了超声诊断远端二头肌肌腱损伤的有效使用;然而,超声波是依赖于操作者的。传统上,评估肱二头肌远端肌腱有四种不同的入路:前路、内侧路、外侧路和后路。关于最好的方法没有一致意见,但是,综合使用所有方法有助于提高评估的准确性。尽管有这种想法,Miller等人回顾了使用超声评估肱二头肌远端肌腱的四种不同入路,发现读者和操作者明显更倾向于内侧入路(P<0.001)。相反,Draghi等人在描述一种使用蟹位超声评估肱二头肌远端肌腱的新方法时指出,前臂旋前入路是最常用的。显然,操作员的偏好和经验会影响首选方法。蟹式体位肘关节屈曲,前臂旋前,单个体位可覆盖肘关节的75%。在评估长轴上的总伸肌腱后,将换能器旋转90度并向远端移动,允许在横切面上观察肱二头肌远端肌腱。使用超声评估远端二头肌肌腱可能具有挑战性,但使用一致的步骤和方法,可以获得准确的评估。本文介绍了一种简单和可重复的技术来评估远端二头肌肌腱超声。在获得患者的知情同意后使用患者的图像。对作者技术的描述不需要机构审查委员会的批准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Current Orthopaedic Practice is a peer-reviewed, general orthopaedic journal that translates clinical research into best practices for diagnosing, treating, and managing musculoskeletal disorders. The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical research, invited special focus reviews and general reviews, as well as original articles on innovations in practice, case reports, point/counterpoint, and diagnostic imaging.
期刊最新文献
Machine learning review of hand surgery literature Jumpy stump syndrome treated by targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR): a case report and review of the literature Impact of COVID-19 on total hip arthroplasty: results from California state inpatient database Osteotomy via the prone transpsoas approach for lateral interbody fusion of the lumbar spine Orthopaedic surgery residency program ranking and the current state of leadership: what are the characteristics of the leaders in the “Top-tier” programs?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1