BACKGROUND: Distal triceps tendon @entity397 occur rarely, and the diagnosis is often missed when the injury is acute. The literature provides little guidance regarding treatment or the outcome of treatment of these @entity130 . The goal of this report was to present our experience with the diagnosis, timing and technique of surgical treatment, and outcome of treatment of distal triceps tendon @entity397 in twenty-two @entity1 . None of the @entity397 followed joint replacement. METHODS: Twenty-three procedures were performed in twenty-two @entity1 with an average age of forty-seven years. The average duration of follow-up was ninety-three months (range, seven to 264 months). Data were obtained by a retrospective review of records and radiographs before and after surgery. Also, thirteen @entity1 returned for follow-up and were examined clinically. Six additional @entity1 responded to a telephone questionnaire. One @entity1 was lost to follow-up, and two had died. Formal biomechanical evaluation of isokinetic strength and isokinetic work was performed in eight @entity1 , at an average of eighty-eight months after surgery. Isokinetic strength data were available from the charts of two additional @entity1 . RESULTS: Ten of the triceps tendon @entity397 were initially misdiagnosed. At the time of diagnosis, @entity425 with a decreased active range of motion was found in most @entity1 , and a palpable @entity924 was noted after sixteen @entity397 . Operative findings revealed a complete @entity397 in eight cases and partial @entity130 in fifteen. Fourteen primary repairs and nine reconstructions of various types were performed. Three of the primary repairs were followed by rerupture. At the time of follow-up, the range of elbow motion averaged 10 degrees to 136 degrees. All but two elbows had a functional range of motion; however, the lack of a functional range in the two elbows was probably due to posttraumatic @entity625 and not to the @entity397 . Triceps strength was noted to be 4/5 or 5/5 on manual testing in all examined subjects. Isokinetic testing of ten @entity1 showed that peak strength was, on the average, 82% of that of the untreated extremity. Testing showed the average endurance of the involved extremity to be 99% of that of the uninvolved arm. The results after repair and reconstruction were comparable, but the @entity1 ' recovery was slower after reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of @entity397 is often missed when the injury is acute because of swelling and @entity158 . Primary repair of the @entity397 tendon is always possible when it is performed within three weeks after the injury. When the diagnosis is in doubt immediately after an injury, the @entity1 should be followed closely and should be reexamined after the swelling and @entity158 have diminished so that treatment can be instituted before the end of this three-week period. Reconstruction of the tendon is a much more complex, challenging procedure, and the postoperative recovery is slower. Thus, we believe that early surgical repair, within three weeks after the injury, is the treatment of @entity397 . of evidence.

Surgical treatment of XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'patient'] @entity625 :: ('MESH:D001168', 'Disease') :: ['arthritis'] @entity924 :: ('MESH:D052256', 'Disease') :: ['defect in the tendon'] @entity425 :: ('MESH:D018908', 'Disease') :: ['triceps weakness'] @entity397 :: ('MESH:D012421', 'Disease') :: ['tendon rupture', 'triceps tendon rupture', 'choice for distal triceps tendon ruptures', 'ruptures', 'ruptured', 'distal triceps tendon rupture'] @entity158 :: ('MESH:D010146', 'Disease') :: ['pain'] @entity130 :: ('MESH:D014947', 'Disease') :: ['injuries']
@entity397 :: (MESH:D012421,Disease) :: ['distal triceps ruptures']
