Complete proximal hamstring avulsions: is there a role for conservative management? A systematic review of acute repairs and non-operative management

Conservative management of proximal hamstring avulsion: A clinical study

Introduction

The management of proximal hamstring tear (PHT) is debated and consensus regarding recommended measures and individual treatment regimens is lacking. The present investigation evaluated the efficacy of a conservative management of partial and complete PHT.

Methods

The present observational study was conducted following the STROBE statement. In June 2018 the medical databases of the BG Klinikum Bergmannstrost Halle, Germany were accessed. All the patients with PHT were retrieved. The outcomes of interest were to evaluate the clinical examination, PROMs, imaging, and isokinetic muscle strength at the baseline and last follow-up.

Results

31 patients were enrolled in the present study. Nine patients (29 % (9 of 31) described local pain at the ischial tuberosity in sitting situations and also in manual palpation. A persistent gap in the tendon string beneath the tuberosity in manual palpation was reported in 25.8 % (8 of 31). The mean VAS at the last follow-up was 2.3 ± 2.3. The mean LEFS score was 50.9 ± 18.8.Control MRI at follow-up showed scarring restitution in the proximal tendon in all patients in the partial tear group. In the complete tear group, a persisting defect state of the proximal tendon course was found in 45 % (9 of 20). The injured side achieved 81.5 ± 22.2 % of the force of the uninjured side, measured in the flexion movement at 60°/s. At an angular velocity of 240°/s, 83.2 ± 26.3 % of the force of the uninjured side was achieved.

Conclusion

According to the main findings of the present study, conservative therapy of PTH tears is associated with good clinical outcomes. High-quality investigations are required to establish the proper therapeutic algorithm and advantages of conservative management compared to a surgical approach.

Level of evidence

Level III.

Operative Repair of Hamstring Injuries From the Jackling Position in Rugby

Background

The jackling position within rugby has not been previously described as a mechanism for proximal hamstring injuries.

Hypothesis

Acute surgical repair of proximal hamstring avulsion injuries sustained from the jackling contact position enables a return to a previous level of sporting activity with low risk of recurrence.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

This study included 54 professional rugby players (mean age, 26 ± 4.8 years) who underwent acute primary surgical repair of complete, proximal hamstring avulsion injuries. The mean follow-up time was 17 months (range, 12-24 months). Mean isometric hamstring strength and function testing was performed at 3 months and 1 year after repair.

Results

Of the 54 players, 51 (94.4%) returned to their preinjury level of sporting activity. The mean time from surgical repair to full sporting activity was 7 months (range, 4-12 months). No patients had recurrence of the primary injury. At 1 year postoperatively, patients had significantly restored mean isometric hamstring muscle strength when compared with the uninjured leg at 0° (98.4% ± 2.8%), 15° (95.9% ± 2.9%), and 45° (92.9% ± 4.1%); improved Lower Extremity Functional Score (78.0 ± 2.0); and improved Marx activity rating score (14.3 ± 1.5) (P < .001 for all).

Conclusion

Acute surgical repair of proximal hamstring avulsion injuries caused by the contact jackling position produced a high return to preinjury level of sporting activity, increased muscle strength, and improved functional outcome scores, with a low risk of recurrence at short-term follow-up.

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.

Staged Repair of Simultaneous Bilateral Proximal Hamstring Rupture and 2 Year Outcome: A Case Report

CASE

A 53-year-old man presented with simultaneous, bilateral proximal hamstring ruptures. He underwent open, staged surgical repair of the proximal hamstrings, followed by a modified course of rehabilitation. At 2-year follow-up, the patient reports excellent outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous, bilateral, 3-tendon rupture of the proximal hamstrings is a rare lower extremity injury. Surgical treatment of such injuries presents several unique challenges. Staged surgical repair is an effective treatment option.

London International Consensus and Delphi study on hamstring injuries part 2: operative management

The key indications for surgical repair of hamstring injuries (HSIs) remain unclear in the literature due to a lack of high-level evidence and expert knowledge. The 2020 London International Hamstring Consensus meeting aimed to highlight clear surgical indications and to create a foundation for future research. A literature review was conducted followed by a modified Delphi process, with an international expert panel. Purposive sampling was used with two rounds of online questionnaires and an intermediate round involving a consensus meeting. The initial information gathering (round 1) questionnaire was sent to 46 international experts, which comprised open-ended questions covering decision-making domains in HSI. Thematic analysis of responses outlined key domains, which were evaluated by a smaller international subgroup (n=15) comprising clinical academic sports medicine physicians, physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons in a consensus meeting. After group discussion of each domain, a series of consensus statements were prepared, debated and refined. A round 2 questionnaire was sent to 112 international hamstring experts to vote on these statements and determine level of agreement. The consensus threshold was set a priori at 70% agreement. Rounds 1 and 2 survey respondents were 35/46 (76%) and 99/112 (88.4%), respectively. The consensus group agreed that the indications for operative intervention included: gapping at the zone of tendinous injury (87.2% agreement) and loss of tension (70.7%); symptomatic displaced bony avulsions (72.8%); and proximal free tendon injuries with functional compromise refractory to non-operative treatment (72.2%). Other important considerations for operative intervention included: the demands of the athlete/patient and the expected functional outcome (87.1%) based on the anatomy of the injury; the risk of functional loss/performance deficit with non-operative management (72.2%); and the capacity to restore anatomy and function (87.1%). Further research is needed to determine whether surgery can reduce the risk of reinjury as consensus was not reached within the whole group (48.2%) but was agreed by surgeons (70%) in the cohort. The consensus group did not support the use of corticosteroids or endoscopic surgery without further evidence. These guidelines will help standardise treatment of HSIs, specifically the indications and decision-making for surgical intervention.

Proximal Hamstring Ruptures: Treatment, Rehabilitation, and Return to Play

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess the current literature surrounding the treatment and rehabilitation strategies surrounding proximal hamstring rupture injuries, along with comparative return to sport and patient-reported outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

A high degree of variability exists in protective and rehabilitation strategies after both operative and non-operative proximal hamstring rupture management. Acceptable outcomes after both operative and non-operative management have been observed but may vary greatly with injury chronicity, severity, and surgical technique. The high complication rates observed after surgical treatment, along with poor functional outcomes that may occur in the setting of non-operative treatment or delayed surgery, highlight the importance of early injury evaluation and careful patient selection. Further high-quality research elucidating clearer indications for early operative management and an optimized and standardized rehabilitation protocols may improve outcomes and return to sport experience and metrics for individuals sustaining proximal hamstring ruptures.

Proximal hamstring tendon avulsions: comparable clinical outcomes of operative and non-operative treatment at 1-year follow-up using a shared decision-making model

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively evaluate 1-year clinical and radiological outcomes after operative and non-operative treatment of proximal hamstring tendon avulsions.

METHODS

Patients with an MRI-confirmed proximal hamstring tendon avulsion were included. Operative or non-operative treatment was selected by a shared decision-making process. The primary outcome was the Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT) score. Secondary outcome scores were Proximal Hamstring Injury Questionnaire, EQ-5D-3L, Tegner Activity Scale, return to sports, hamstring flexibility, isometric hamstring strength and MRI findings including proximal continuity.

RESULTS

Twenty-six operative and 33 non-operative patients with a median age of 51 (IQR: 37-57) and 49 (IQR: 45-56) years were included. Median time between injury and initial visit was 12 (IQR 6-19) days for operative and 21 (IQR 12-48) days for non-operative patients (p=0.004). Baseline PHAT scores were significantly lower in the operative group (32±16 vs 45±17, p=0.003). There was no difference in mean PHAT score between groups at 1 year follow-up (80±19 vs 80±17, p=0.97). Mean PHAT score improved by 47 (95% CI 39 to 55, p<0.001) after operative and 34 (95% CI 27 to 41, p<0.001) after non-operative treatment. There were no relevant differences in secondary clinical outcome measures. Proximal continuity on MRI was present in 20 (95%, 1 recurrence) operative and 14 (52%, no recurrences) non-operative patients (p=0.008).

CONCLUSION

In a shared decision-making model of care, both operative and non-operative treatment of proximal hamstring tendon avulsions resulted in comparable clinical outcome at 1-year follow-up. Operative patients had lower pretreatment PHAT scores but improved substantially to reach comparable PHAT scores as non-operative patients. We recommend using this shared decision model of care until evidence-based indications in favour of either treatment option are available from high-level clinical trials.

Validation of the Sydney Hamstring Origin Rupture Evaluation (SHORE)

AIMS

To validate the Sydney Hamstring Origin Rupture Evaluation (SHORE), a hamstring-specific clinical assessment tool to evaluate patient outcomes following surgical treatment.

METHODS

A prospective study of 70 unilateral hamstring surgical repairs, with a mean age of 47.3 years (15 to 73). Patients completed the SHORE preoperatively and at six months post-surgery, and then completed both the SHORE and Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT) at three years post-surgery. The SHORE questionnaire was validated through the evaluation of its psychometric properties, including; internal consistency, reproducibility, reliability, sensitivity to change, and ceiling effect. Construct validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation analysis to examine the strength of association between the SHORE and the PHAT.

RESULTS

The SHORE demonstrated an excellent completion rate (100%), high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.78), and good reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.82). The SHORE had a high correlation with the validated PHAT score. It was more sensitive in detecting clinical change compared to the PHAT. A ceiling effect was not present in the SHORE at six months; however, a ceiling effect was identified in both scores at three years post-surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study has validated the SHORE patient reported outcome measure (PROM) as a short, practical, reliable, valid, and responsive tool that can be used to assess symptom and function following hamstring injury and surgical repair. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):388-393.

Proximal hamstring tendon avulsion treatment choice depends on a combination of clinical and imaging-related factors: a worldwide survey on current clinical practice and decision-making

Objectives

To evaluate current practice in the treatment of proximal hamstring tendon avulsions and identify decision-making preferences.

Methods

An invitation to an anonymous e-survey containing 32 questions was sent to 3475 members of the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine (ISAKOS) and the European College of Sports and Exercise Physicians (ECOSEP).

Results

We received 403 (12%) unique responses with a completion rate of 79%. Participants were orthopaedic/trauma surgeons (90%), sports medicine physicians (7%) or physical therapists (2%). For 83% of the participants, the preferred treatment (ie, surgical or non-operative) depends on the individual case. Participants base their decision-making process on patient- and injury-related factors (decision modifiers). The five most frequently selected decision modifiers that support the choice for surgical treatment were diminished function (84%), neurological symptoms (74%), involved tendons (82%), tendon retraction on MRI (84%) and patient preference for surgery (78%). The majority prefer early surgical repair (<2 weeks after injury) to achieve highest functional outcome (63%) and ensure a low complication risk (61%). Suture anchors are used by 93% of the participants for tendon reattachment. Estimated recovery duration (ie, time to return to sports) was a median 12 weeks (IQR: 12–20) for non-operative treatment and 17 weeks (IQR: 12–24) for surgical treatment. Estimated reinjury risk was a median 25% (IQR: 10–31.5) and 10% (IQR: 5–20), respectively.

Conclusion

This survey among experienced medical professionals has summarised current practice and identified treatment decision-making preferences. The typical surgical patient has a retracted (>2 cm) two-tendon avulsion (ie, common tendon and semimembranosus tendon), is unable to engage in sports or activities of daily life, reports sciatic symptoms and prefers surgical treatment. Surgery is thought to prolong recovery and decrease reinjury risk compared with non-operative treatment and is preferably performed early.

Level of evidence

Level V.