肱二头肌远端破裂的治疗:综述。

Q1 Medicine Joints Pub Date : 2019-10-11 eCollection Date: 2018-12-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0039-1697615
Simone Cerciello, Enrico Visonà, Katia Corona, Paulo Roberto Ribeiro Filho, Stefano Carbone
{"title":"肱二头肌远端破裂的治疗:综述。","authors":"Simone Cerciello,&nbsp;Enrico Visonà,&nbsp;Katia Corona,&nbsp;Paulo Roberto Ribeiro Filho,&nbsp;Stefano Carbone","doi":"10.1055/s-0039-1697615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Traumatic lesions of the distal biceps brachii are uncommon. They often result from rapid elbow flexion against resistance. Conservative treatment is only indicated in low-demanding patient and in those who have severe comorbidities. Regarding the surgical approach, two options are available: the single- and the double-incision techniques. The former has been the first to be described and was associated with significant rate of neurologic complications. The second showed less frequent neurologic lesions, but considerable rate of heterotopic ossifications with reduced forearm movement. The choice of fixation device is another important issue. Cortical buttons, transosseous repair, suture anchors, and interference screws have shown satisfactory outcomes. However, cortical buttons have the best mechanical properties. Although a lack of high methodological quality studies emerges in the available literature, three recent systematic reviews and meta-analysis show interesting findings. Surgical reinsertion of the distal biceps brachii yields satisfactory clinical outcomes both with the single- and double-incision techniques. Higher prevalence of nerve injuries is associated with the single-incision techniques, whereas higher prevalence of heterotopic ossification is reported with double-incision techniques. Thus far, there is no sufficient evidence to support one option and the choice is mainly based on surgeon's experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":37852,"journal":{"name":"Joints","volume":"6 4","pages":"228-231"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0039-1697615","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Treatment of Distal Biceps Ruptures: An Overview.\",\"authors\":\"Simone Cerciello,&nbsp;Enrico Visonà,&nbsp;Katia Corona,&nbsp;Paulo Roberto Ribeiro Filho,&nbsp;Stefano Carbone\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0039-1697615\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Traumatic lesions of the distal biceps brachii are uncommon. They often result from rapid elbow flexion against resistance. Conservative treatment is only indicated in low-demanding patient and in those who have severe comorbidities. Regarding the surgical approach, two options are available: the single- and the double-incision techniques. The former has been the first to be described and was associated with significant rate of neurologic complications. The second showed less frequent neurologic lesions, but considerable rate of heterotopic ossifications with reduced forearm movement. The choice of fixation device is another important issue. Cortical buttons, transosseous repair, suture anchors, and interference screws have shown satisfactory outcomes. However, cortical buttons have the best mechanical properties. Although a lack of high methodological quality studies emerges in the available literature, three recent systematic reviews and meta-analysis show interesting findings. Surgical reinsertion of the distal biceps brachii yields satisfactory clinical outcomes both with the single- and double-incision techniques. Higher prevalence of nerve injuries is associated with the single-incision techniques, whereas higher prevalence of heterotopic ossification is reported with double-incision techniques. Thus far, there is no sufficient evidence to support one option and the choice is mainly based on surgeon's experience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37852,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Joints\",\"volume\":\"6 4\",\"pages\":\"228-231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0039-1697615\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Joints\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1697615\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joints","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1697615","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

肱二头肌远端外伤性病变并不常见。它们通常是由于肘部对阻力的快速弯曲造成的。保守治疗仅适用于低要求患者和有严重合并症的患者。关于手术入路,有两种选择:单切口和双切口技术。前者是第一个被描述的,并且与神经系统并发症的显著率相关。第二组神经病变发生率较低,但异位骨化率相当高,伴有前臂运动减少。固定装置的选择是另一个重要问题。皮质钮扣、经骨修复、缝合锚钉和干涉螺钉均显示出满意的结果。然而,皮质按钮具有最好的机械性能。尽管在现有文献中缺乏高方法学质量的研究,但最近的三个系统综述和荟萃分析显示了有趣的发现。采用单切口和双切口技术,肱二头肌远端手术复位均获得满意的临床结果。单切口技术有较高的神经损伤发生率,而双切口技术有较高的异位骨化发生率。到目前为止,没有足够的证据支持一种选择,选择主要基于外科医生的经验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
The Treatment of Distal Biceps Ruptures: An Overview.

Traumatic lesions of the distal biceps brachii are uncommon. They often result from rapid elbow flexion against resistance. Conservative treatment is only indicated in low-demanding patient and in those who have severe comorbidities. Regarding the surgical approach, two options are available: the single- and the double-incision techniques. The former has been the first to be described and was associated with significant rate of neurologic complications. The second showed less frequent neurologic lesions, but considerable rate of heterotopic ossifications with reduced forearm movement. The choice of fixation device is another important issue. Cortical buttons, transosseous repair, suture anchors, and interference screws have shown satisfactory outcomes. However, cortical buttons have the best mechanical properties. Although a lack of high methodological quality studies emerges in the available literature, three recent systematic reviews and meta-analysis show interesting findings. Surgical reinsertion of the distal biceps brachii yields satisfactory clinical outcomes both with the single- and double-incision techniques. Higher prevalence of nerve injuries is associated with the single-incision techniques, whereas higher prevalence of heterotopic ossification is reported with double-incision techniques. Thus far, there is no sufficient evidence to support one option and the choice is mainly based on surgeon's experience.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Joints
Joints Medicine-Rehabilitation
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Joints is the official publication of SIGASCOT (Italian Society of the Knee, Arthroscopy, Sports Traumatology, Cartilage and Orthopaedic Technology). As an Open Acccess journal, it publishes papers on clinical and basic research, review articles, technical notes, case reports, and editorials about the latest developments in knee surgery, arthroscopy, sports traumatology, cartilage, orthopaedic technology, upper limb, and related rehabilitation. Letters to the Editor and comments on the journal''s content are always welcome.
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Porous-Coated Metaphyseal Sleeves in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Midterm Results. Hip and Groin Pain in Soccer Players. Acute Groin Pain Syndrome Due to Internal Obturator Muscle Injury in a Professional Football Player. Short-Term Outcomes of the Grammont Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Comparison between First and Second Generation Delta Prosthesis. The Relationship between Kinesiophobia and Return to Sport after Shoulder Surgery for Recurrent Anterior Instability.
×
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