Healing Response of a Structural Hamstring Injury: Perfusion Imaging 8-Week Follow-Up

Non-surgical management of acute proximal hamstring avulsions can produce clinically acceptable results

PURPOSE

To evaluate the mid-term clinical outcomes for the non-surgical and surgical management of acute proximal hamstring avulsions.

METHODS

Sixty physically active individuals were offered surgical or non-surgical management for their proximal hamstring avulsion injuries. Distal retraction was defined as greater than 2 cm. Primary outcome measures were the Victorian Institute of sport assessment-proximal hamstring tendons (VISA-H) and functional assessment scale for acute hamstring injuries (FASH). Secondary outcome measures included palpable gap (cm), return to sport (RTS) and the ability to perform Nordic hamstring curls. Outcome variables were adjusted in regression models for gender, age, and treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients elected to undertake non-surgical management, and 29 chose surgery with a mean follow-up of 34.8 ± 8.7 and 34.9 ± 7.0 months, respectively. The mean VISA-H for the non-surgical and surgical groups were 87.3 ± 3.4 and 87.9 ± 4.1 (n.s.), respectively. The mean FASH for the non-surgical group was 89.3 ± 2.4 and 88 ± 3.6 for the surgical group (n.s.). This was consistent after adjusting for confounders. The mean gap for the non-surgical group was 4.5 ± 1.09 and 4.9 ± 1.19 cm for the surgical group (n.s.). No significant differences were found in the abilities to perform Nordic hamstring curls (n.s.). Both groups achieved comparable RTS rates (n.s.). On average, the non-surgical group achieved RTS at 5.5 ± 1.2 months post-injury, whereas the surgical group was at 5.7 ± 0.7 months (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

Physically active individuals with acute proximal hamstring avulsions and distal retraction of the tendon stump can be managed non-surgically, achieving similar functional levels and RTS compared to patients treated surgically.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Is radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy combined with a specific rehabilitation program (rESWT + RP) more effective than sham-rESWT + RP for acute hamstring muscle complex injury type 3b in athletes? Study protocol for a prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled single centre trial

Background

Acute injuries of the hamstring muscle complex (HMC) type 3b (interfascicle/bundle-tear) are frequently observed in various sports disciplines both in elite and recreational sport. The treatment of choice of acute HMC injuries type 3b is a progressive physiotherapeutic exercise programme. Besides this, there is currently only insufficient scientific evidence to support other treatment methods, including local infiltrations and injections of platelet-rich-plasma. Very recently, it was demonstrated that extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) may accelerate regeneration after acute skeletal muscle injury. The aim of the present study is to test the hypothesis that the combination of radial ESWT (rESWT) and a specific rehabilitation program (RP) is effective and safe in treatment of acute HMC injury type 3b in athletes, and is statistically significantly more effective than the combination of sham-rESWT and RP.

Methods

We will perform a double blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial at the clinic KinEf Kinesiología Deportiva, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Forty patients with acute HMC injury type 3b will be randomly allocated to receive either rESWT (nine rESWT sessions; three sessions per week; 2500 radial extracorporeal shock waves (rESWs) per session; energy density depending on what the patient tolerates) or sham-rESWT. In addition, all patients will receive a specific rehabilitation program that will last for 8 weeks. The primary outcome measure will be the individual time (days) necessary to return to play. Secondary outcomes will include the presence or absence of reinjury during a time period of 6 months after inclusion into the study.

Discussion

Because of the lack of adequate treatment options for acute HMC injury type 3b in athletes and particularly the high reinjury rate, we hypothesize that the results of this trial will be of importance and have impact on clinical practice.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03473899. Registered March 22, 2018.

Nonoperative treatment of muscle injuries - recommendations from the GOTS expert meeting

BACKGROUND

Muscle injuries are some of the most common injuries in sports; they have a high recurrence rate and can result in the loss of ability to participate in training or competition. In clinical practice, a wide variety of treatment strategies are commonly applied. However, a limited amount of evidence-based data exists, and most therapeutic approaches are solely based on "best practice". Thus, there is a need for consensus to provide strategies and recommendations for the treatment of muscle injuries.

METHODS

The 2016 GOTS Expert Meeting, initiated by the German-Austrian-Swiss Society for Orthopaedic Traumatologic Sports Medicine (GOTS), focused on the topic of muscle and tendon injuries and was held in Spreewald/Berlin, Germany. The committee was composed of twenty-two medical specialists. Nine of them were delegated to a subcommittee focusing on the nonoperative treatment of muscle injuries. The recommendations and statements that were developed were reviewed by the entire consensus committee and voted on by the members.

RESULTS

The committee reached a consensus on the utility and effectiveness of the management of muscle injuries.

MAIN RESULTS

the "PRICE" principle to target the first inflammatory response is one of the most relevant steps in the treatment of muscle injuries. Haematoma aspiration may be considered in the early stages after injury. There is presently no clear evidence that intramuscular injections are of use in the treatment of muscle injuries. The ingestion of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) should be regarded critically because there is currently no hard evidence to support their use, although they are appropriate in exceptional cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The present work provides a structured overview of the various nonoperative treatment strategies of muscle injuries and evaluates their effectiveness with respect to the existing scientific evidence and clinical expertise in the context of basic science on the healing process of muscle injuries. The committee agreed that there is a compelling need for further studies, including high-quality randomized investigations to completely evaluate the effectiveness of the existing therapeutic approaches. The given recommendations may be updated and adjusted as further evidence will be generated.