Imaging and clinical tests for the diagnosis of long-standing groin pain in athletes. A systematic review

Pain provocation tests and clinical entities in male football players with longstanding groin pain are associated with pain intensity and disability

BACKGROUND

Clinical examination of male football players with longstanding groin pain can be considered difficult. Pain provocation tests are used to examine and classify longstanding groin pain into clinical entities as adductor-, iliopsoas-, inguinal-, and pubic-related. It is unknown if pain provocation tests and clinical entities are associated with pain intensity and disability.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate if the number of positive pain provocation tests and clinical entities are associated with pain intensity and disability, measured by the Copenhagen 5-Second Squeeze Test (5SST) and the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS), respectively.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

METHOD

Forty male football players (age: mean 24 years [SD: 3.2]; height: mean 182 cm [SD: 5.7]; weight: mean 78 Kg [SD: 6.6]) with longstanding groin pain for a median of 8.5 months (IQR: 4-36) were included. The players underwent a bilateral groin examination with 33 pain provocation tests and were classified with clinical entities (0-7) based on the test findings.

RESULTS

The number of positive pain provocation tests (median 10, range 2-23) correlated with pain intensity (5SST: rs = 0.70 [95% CI: 0.50, 0.83]) and disability (HAGOS subscales Sport: rs =-0.62 [95% CI: -0.81, -0.36], Pain: rs = -0.38 [95% CI: -0.69, -0.06], Symptoms: rs = 0.52 [95% CI: -0.73, -0.24], ADL: rs = -0.48 [95% CI: -0.71, -0.18]). The number of clinical entities (median 3, range: 1-7) showed similar but weaker correlations to pain intensity and disability.

CONCLUSIONS

In male football players with longstanding groin pain, the number of positive pain provocation tests and clinical entities shows weak to strong correlations with pain intensity and disability. Consequently, when pain intensity and disability are severe, a higher number of pain provocation tests may be positive, and more clinical entities may be present.

Longitudinal cohort study on preoperative pain as a risk factor for chronic postoperative inguinal pain after groin hernia repair at 2-year follow-up

PURPOSE

To assess the rate of late chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) after groin hernia repair in patients with different categories of preoperative VRS (Verbal Rating Scale) pain and to make a pragmatic evaluation of the rates of potentially surgery-related CPIP vs. postoperative continuation of preexisting preoperative pain.

METHODS

Groin pain of patients operated from 01/11/2011 to 01/04/2014 was assessed preoperatively, postoperatively and at 2-year follow-up using a VRS-4 in 5670 consecutive groin hernia repairs. A PROM (Patient Related Outcomes Measurement) questionnaire studied the impact of CPIP on the patients' daily life.

RESULTS

Relevant (moderate or severe VRS) pain was registered preoperatively in 1639 of 5670 (29%) cases vs. 197 of 4704 (4.2%) cases at the 2-year follow-up. Among the latter, 125 (3.7%) cases were found in 3353 cases with no-relevant preoperative pain and 72 (5.3%) in 1351 cases with relevant preoperative pain. Relevant CPIP consisted of 179 (3.8%) cases of moderate pain and 18 (0.4%) cases of severe pain. The rate of severe CPIP was independent of the preoperative VRS-pain category while the rate of moderate CPIP (3.1%, 3.4%, 4.1%, 6.8%) increased in line with the preoperative (none, mild, moderate, and severe) VRS-pain categories. The VRS probably overestimated pain since 71.6% of the relevant CPIP patients assessed their pain as less bothersome than the hernia.

CONCLUSION

At the 2-year follow-up, relevant CPIP was registered in 4.2% cases, of which 63.5% were potentially surgery-related (no-relevant preoperative pain) and 36.5% possibly due to the postoperative persistence of preoperative pain. The rate of severe CPIP was constant around 0.4%.

Athletic groin pain patients and healthy athletes demonstrate consistency in their movement strategy selection when performing multiple repetitions of a change of direction test

OBJECTIVES

To report the consistency in movement strategy selection in athletic groin pain patients and to assess whether there are differences in consistency between athletic groin pain patients and healthy athletes.

DESIGN

Cross sectional exploratory study.

METHODS

Twenty athletic groin pain patients and 21 healthy athletes performed 15 repetitions of 110° change of direction task. Lower limb and trunk kinematics alongside ground reaction forces were collected. A correlation-to-mean algorithm was used to allocate each trial to a movement strategy using kinematic and kinetic features. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the frequency of the most selected strategy (i.e. consistency) and fuzziness between athletic groin pain patients and healthy athletes. Chi-squared tests were used to compare the strategy selection between athletic groin pain patients and healthy athletes.

RESULTS

There were no differences between groups in consistency in movement strategy selection (>80%). Athletic groin pain patients tended to select a knee dominant movement strategy whereas healthy athletes preferred an ankle dominant movement strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

The consistency observed in athletic groin pain patients supports the implementation of movement strategy assessments to inform AGP rehabilitation programmes tailored to athletes' deficiencies. Such assessments could help enhance the success of athletic groin pain rehabilitation. Differences in movement strategy selection might not be associated with injury state since there were no differences between athletic groin pain patients and healthy athletes.

Groin pain in athletes and non-interventional rehabilitative treatment: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Groin pain is a common complaint both in high-performance and recreational athletes. Diagnosis is based on the patient's history and physical examination. Imaging assessments are often considered to exclude other pathologies. To date there is no strong evidence to support conservative or surgical treatment options. The purpose of this study is to shed light on the more effective non-interventional rehabilitative treatments for the management of groin pain in athletes and, if possible, provide guidelines useful for clinical practice.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The following electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Scopus, Web of Science, Google and Google Scholar. Databases were investigated from January 1997 until March 2017.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The results reported in the randomized clinical trial studies highlight that active treatment is better than passive treatment to improve clinical signs of groin pain. Comparing the active strategy with multi-modal treatment the latter allows a faster return to sport activity. Although the evidence remains poor, all the included literature highlights that an integrated strategy which combines active and passive treatment, the assessment of perceived pain, a return to running program and specific-sport exercises is an effective strategy for management of groin pain in athletes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we shed some light on common key aspects able to improve the typical signs of groin pain, on the basis of available data we were unable to provide practice guidelines. Further studies are necessary to set the best treatment algorithm for the management of groin pain in athletes.

International guidelines for groin hernia management

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, more than 20 million patients undergo groin hernia repair annually. The many different approaches, treatment indications and a significant array of techniques for groin hernia repair warrant guidelines to standardize care, minimize complications, and improve results. The main goal of these guidelines is to improve patient outcomes, specifically to decrease recurrence rates and reduce chronic pain, the most frequent problems following groin hernia repair. They have been endorsed by all five continental hernia societies, the International Endo Hernia Society and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.

METHODS

An expert group of international surgeons (the HerniaSurge Group) and one anesthesiologist pain expert was formed. The group consisted of members from all continents with specific experience in hernia-related research. Care was taken to include surgeons who perform different types of repair and had preferably performed research on groin hernia surgery. During the Group's first meeting, evidence-based medicine (EBM) training occurred and 166 key questions (KQ) were formulated. EBM rules were followed in complete literature searches (including a complete search by The Dutch Cochrane database) to January 1, 2015 and to July 1, 2015 for level 1 publications. The articles were scored by teams of two or three according to Oxford, SIGN and Grade methodologies. During five 2-day meetings, results were discussed with the working group members leading to 136 statements and 88 recommendations. Recommendations were graded as "strong" (recommendations) or "weak" (suggestions) and by consensus in some cases upgraded. In the Results and summary section below, the term "should" refers to a recommendation. The AGREE II instrument was used to validate the guidelines. An external review was performed by three international experts. They recommended the guidelines with high scores. The risk factors for inguinal hernia (IH) include: family history, previous contra-lateral hernia, male gender, age, abnormal collagen metabolism, prostatectomy, and low body mass index. Peri-operative risk factors for recurrence include poor surgical techniques, low surgical volumes, surgical inexperience and local anesthesia. These should be considered when treating IH patients. IH diagnosis can be confirmed by physical examination alone in the vast majority of patients with appropriate signs and symptoms. Rarely, ultrasound is necessary. Less commonly still, a dynamic MRI or CT scan or herniography may be needed. The EHS classification system is suggested to stratify IH patients for tailored treatment, research and audit. Symptomatic groin hernias should be treated surgically. Asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic male IH patients may be managed with "watchful waiting" since their risk of hernia-related emergencies is low. The majority of these individuals will eventually require surgery; therefore, surgical risks and the watchful waiting strategy should be discussed with patients. Surgical treatment should be tailored to the surgeon's expertise, patient- and hernia-related characteristics and local/national resources. Furthermore, patient health-related, life style and social factors should all influence the shared decision-making process leading up to hernia management. Mesh repair is recommended as first choice, either by an open procedure or a laparo-endoscopic repair technique. One standard repair technique for all groin hernias does not exist. It is recommended that surgeons/surgical services provide both anterior and posterior approach options. Lichtenstein and laparo-endoscopic repair are best evaluated. Many other techniques need further evaluation. Provided that resources and expertise are available, laparo-endoscopic techniques have faster recovery times, lower chronic pain risk and are cost effective. There is discussion concerning laparo-endoscopic management of potential bilateral hernias (occult hernia issue). After patient consent, during TAPP, the contra-lateral side should be inspected. This is not suggested during unilateral TEP repair. After appropriate discussions with patients concerning results tissue repair (first choice is the Shouldice technique) can be offered. Day surgery is recommended for the majority of groin hernia repair provided aftercare is organized. Surgeons should be aware of the intrinsic characteristics of the meshes they use. Use of so-called low-weight mesh may have slight short-term benefits like reduced postoperative pain and shorter convalescence, but are not associated with better longer-term outcomes like recurrence and chronic pain. Mesh selection on weight alone is not recommended. The incidence of erosion seems higher with plug versus flat mesh. It is suggested not to use plug repair techniques. The use of other implants to replace the standard flat mesh in the Lichtenstein technique is currently not recommended. In almost all cases, mesh fixation in TEP is unnecessary. In both TEP and TAPP it is recommended to fix mesh in M3 hernias (large medial) to reduce recurrence risk. Antibiotic prophylaxis in average-risk patients in low-risk environments is not recommended in open surgery. In laparo-endoscopic repair it is never recommended. Local anesthesia in open repair has many advantages, and its use is recommended provided the surgeon is experienced in this technique. General anesthesia is suggested over regional in patients aged 65 and older as it might be associated with fewer complications like myocardial infarction, pneumonia and thromboembolism. Perioperative field blocks and/or subfascial/subcutaneous infiltrations are recommended in all cases of open repair. Patients are recommended to resume normal activities without restrictions as soon as they feel comfortable. Provided expertise is available, it is suggested that women with groin hernias undergo laparo-endoscopic repair in order to decrease the risk of chronic pain and avoid missing a femoral hernia. Watchful waiting is suggested in pregnant women as groin swelling most often consists of self-limited round ligament varicosities. Timely mesh repair by a laparo-endoscopic approach is suggested for femoral hernias provided expertise is available. All complications of groin hernia management are discussed in an extensive chapter on the topic. Overall, the incidence of clinically significant chronic pain is in the 10-12% range, decreasing over time. Debilitating chronic pain affecting normal daily activities or work ranges from 0.5 to 6%. Chronic postoperative inguinal pain (CPIP) is defined as bothersome moderate pain impacting daily activities lasting at least 3 months postoperatively and decreasing over time. CPIP risk factors include: young age, female gender, high preoperative pain, early high postoperative pain, recurrent hernia and open repair. For CPIP the focus should be on nerve recognition in open surgery and, in selected cases, prophylactic pragmatic nerve resection (planned resection is not suggested). It is suggested that CPIP management be performed by multi-disciplinary teams. It is also suggested that CPIP be managed by a combination of pharmacological and interventional measures and, if this is unsuccessful, followed by, in selected cases (triple) neurectomy and (in selected cases) mesh removal. For recurrent hernia after anterior repair, posterior repair is recommended. If recurrence occurs after a posterior repair, an anterior repair is recommended. After a failed anterior and posterior approach, management by a specialist hernia surgeon is recommended. Risk factors for hernia incarceration/strangulation include: female gender, femoral hernia and a history of hospitalization related to groin hernia. It is suggested that treatment of emergencies be tailored according to patient- and hernia-related factors, local expertise and resources. Learning curves vary between different techniques. Probably about 100 supervised laparo-endoscopic repairs are needed to achieve the same results as open mesh surgery like Lichtenstein. It is suggested that case load per surgeon is more important than center volume. It is recommended that minimum requirements be developed to certify individuals as expert hernia surgeon. The same is true for the designation "Hernia Center". From a cost-effectiveness perspective, day-case laparoscopic IH repair with minimal use of disposables is recommended. The development and implementation of national groin hernia registries in every country (or region, in the case of small country populations) is suggested. They should include patient follow-up data and account for local healthcare structures. A dissemination and implementation plan of the guidelines will be developed by global (HerniaSurge), regional (international societies) and local (national chapters) initiatives through internet websites, social media and smartphone apps. An overarching plan to improve access to safe IH surgery in low-resource settings (LRSs) is needed. It is suggested that this plan contains simple guidelines and a sustainability strategy, independent of international aid. It is suggested that in LRSs the focus be on performing high-volume Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia using low-cost mesh. Three chapters discuss future research, guidelines for general practitioners and guidelines for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The HerniaSurge Group has developed these extensive and inclusive guidelines for the management of adult groin hernia patients. It is hoped that they will lead to better outcomes for groin hernia patients wherever they live. More knowledge, better training, national audit and specialization in groin hernia management will standardize care for these patients, lead to more effective and efficient healthcare and provide direction for future research.