Modified surgical anchor refixation in older patients with acute proximal hamstring rupture: clinical outcome, patient satisfaction and muscle strength

Reconstruction of proximal hamstring ruptures restores joint biomechanics during various walking conditions

PURPOSE

We aimed to examine the functional outcome in different walking conditions in elderly adults who underwent surgical repair after a non-contact hamstring injury. Our objective was to compare lower limb kinematics and kinetics over the entire gait cycle between the injured and contralateral leg in overground and level and uphill treadmill walking.

METHODS

12 patients (mean ± SD, age: 65 ± 9 years; body mass index: 30 ± 6 kg/m2) walked at self-selected speed in overground (0% slope) and treadmill conditions (0% and 10% slope). We measured spatiotemporal parameters, joint angles (normalised to gait cycle) and joint moments (normalised to stance phase) of the hip, knee and ankle. Data between sides were compared using paired sample t-tests (p < 0.05) and continuous 95% confidence intervals of the paired difference between trajectories.

RESULTS

Patients walked at an average speed of 1.31 ± 0.26 m/second overground and 0.92 ± 0.31 m/second on the treadmill. Spatiotemporal parameters were comparable between the injured and contralateral leg (p > 0.05). Joint kinematic and joint kinetic trajectories were comparable between sides for all walking conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Refixation of the proximal hamstring tendons resulted in comparable ambulatory mechanics at least 1 year after surgery in the injured leg and the contralateral leg, which were all within the range of normative values reported in the literature. These results complement our previous findings on hamstring repair in terms of clinical outcomes and muscle strength and support that surgical repair achieves good functional outcomes in terms of ambulation in an elderly population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04867746).

Systematic Review of Bracing After Proximal Hamstring Repair

Background

Traditionally, postoperative rehabilitation protocols after proximal hamstring repair (PHR) for avulsion of the proximal hamstring tendon from its ischial insertion recommend bracing the hip and/or knee to protect the fixation. However, because of the cumbersome nature of these orthoses, recent studies have investigated outcomes in patients with postoperative protocols that do not include any form of postoperative bracing.

Purpose

To synthesize the current body of evidence concerning bracing versus nonbracing postoperative management of PHR.

Study Design

Systematic review; level of evidence, 4.

Methods

Using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we conducted a thorough search of the PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Embase (OVID) databases on March 24, 2023. We analyzed complication rates, reoperation rates, patient satisfaction, return to sport, and patient-reported outcomes of studies that used postoperative bracing versus studies that used no postoperative bracing after PHR with at least 12 months of follow-up. A total of 308 articles were identified after initial search.

Results

In total, 25 studies were included in this review: 18 studies (905 patients) on bracing and 7 studies (291 patients) on nonbracing after PHR. The overall complication rate in the braced patients was found to be 10.9%, compared with 12.7% in nonbraced patients. The rate of reoperation due to retear of the proximal hamstring was found to be 0.05% in braced patients and 3.1% in nonbraced patients. Patient-reported outcome measures were found to be higher at the final follow-up in braced versus nonbraced patients, and patient satisfaction was found to be 94.7% in braced studies compared with 88.9% in nonbraced studies. The rate of 12-month return to sport in athletic patients was 88.4% with bracing and 82.7% without bracing.

Conclusion

The findings of this review demonstrated lower complication and reoperation rates, higher patient-reported outcome scores, higher patient satisfaction, and a higher rate of return to sport in braced patients compared with nonbraced patients.

Hamstring Injury Treatments and Management in Athletes: A Systematic Review of the Current Literature

BACKGROUND

The field of sports medicine presents a varied landscape of research on hamstring injuries in athletes, characterized by inconclusive and sometimes conflicting findings on effective treatment and rehabilitation strategies. This discordance prompted the current systematic investigation.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed for conducting the systematic review. Multiple international bibliometric databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched to identify studies evaluating any treatment option for the management of hamstring injuries in athletes. Eligible studies were appraised for quality using Joanna Briggs Institute and Risk of Bias 2 tools.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies with 1,195 participants were included. Of the reviewed studies, treatments varied from aggressive rehabilitation, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections, manual techniques, various exercise protocols to modalities like high-power laser and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Evidence suggested benefits from treatments like extensive muscle lengthening during eccentric actions, progressive agility, and trunk stabilization. PRP injections produced mixed results regarding return to sport and reinjury rates. Stretching exercises, sometimes combined with cryotherapy, showed benefits.

CONCLUSION

Treatments for hamstring injuries exhibit varied efficacy. Although rest, ice, compression, and elevation remains essential for acute management, rehabilitation focusing on muscle strengthening and flexibility is crucial. The potential benefits of PRP injections, especially for chronic cases, require more conclusive research. A comprehensive approach, combining evidence-based practices and patient-centric factors, is vital for effective management and recovery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.