Importance Distal biceps rupture is a debilitating injury that is increasing in incidence. A subset of patient experiences this injury on both sides, simultaneously or at separated times. Previous studies have evaluated the incidence and risk factors of unilateral distal biceps rupture. However, little is known about the risk factors for bilateral distal biceps rupture.
Aims This aims of this study were to determine risk factors for bilateral distal biceps rupture and to compare these to the known risk factors for unilateral rupture.
Evidence review A systematic review of literature was conducted using five databases, producing a total of 1183 papers. After the review process, 31 papers with data bilateral distal biceps tendon ruptures were included.
Findings The 31 papers included a total of 2234 patients with 2366 ruptures. Patients with a bilateral rupture were younger than patients with unilateral ruptures (45.8 vs 48.8 years old). Women made up a larger percentage of patients with bilateral ruptures (6.8% vs 4.0%). Bilateral injuries occurred most commonly during heavy lifting or falls, whereas forced extension of the arm was the most frequently reported injury mechanism reported with unilateral ruptures. Tobacco used was more common in patients with bilateral ruptures (24.4% vs 6.8%). Labour-intensive occupations and anabolic steroid use did not appear to increase the risk of a bilateral rupture. Pooling of the data was not possible due to heterogeneity of the included studies.
Conclusions While differences in risk factors between patients with unilateral and bilateral ruptures were observed, there was too great of a degree of heterogeneity among the studies to perform a meta-analysis of the data.
Level of evidence Systematic review; level III evidence.
- orthopaedic sports medicine
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors All authors contributed to the preparation of this work. CvE and CBH performed the study design. CBH and RA performed the search. CvE and CBH selected the papers and performed data extraction and analysis. CBH wrote and CvE reviewed and corrected the paper.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Raw data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.