Functional impairment after successful surgical reconstruction for proximal hamstring avulsion
- 43 Downloads
Surgical refixation procedures after hamstring avulsion injuries show satisfying to excellent outcome results. However, for post-operative evaluation so far, used outcome scores were partially not injury-specific, heterogeneous, difficult to compare, and possibly overestimated due to ceiling effects. A new injury-specific assessment tool has recently been published, potentially depicting more realistic outcome results. Thus, the aim of our study was to evaluate patients after hamstring refixation surgery using previously utilized as well as the new Perth hamstring assessment tool (PHAT).
A series of operated hamstring injuries were retrospectively evaluated using the PHAT as well as the widespread, customized Lower Extremity Functional Scale (C-LEFS) and the customized Marx score (C-Marx). Scores as well as potential ceiling effects were evaluated individually, and compared and correlated to each other.
Sixty-four patients were enrolled into the survey. Forty-nine questionnaires (76%) could be evaluated. The mean total PHAT score (0–100) after 28 months (SD ± 17.0) was 74.1 (SD ± 22.5) points. Mean total C-LEFS (0–80) revealed 61.4 (SD ± 18.1) points, and the mean total C-Marx score (20) was 19.4 (SD ± 1.6) points. Pearson’s correlation between the individual questionnaires was high between the PHAT and the C-LEFS (r = 0.81) and low between the PHAT and C-Marx (r = 0.52) and between C-LEFS and C-Marx (r = 0.48).
The presented study confirms good subjective functional outcomes after surgical intervention of hamstring avulsions in all scores. Nevertheless, using the PHAT, residual complaints are more common than often described in previous studies interpreting “conventional” scores. For future decision and patient guidance, more studies using injury-specific assessments such as the PHAT in combination with objective measurements are eligible.
KeywordsProximal hamstring surgery Tendon refixation Outcome measurement Return to activity
Compliance with ethical standards
This retrospective survey does not contain any experimental studies on human participants or animals and thus meets all ethical standards described in the Declaration of Helsinki.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 8.Pombo M, Bradley JP (2009) Proximal hamstring avulsion injuries: a technique note on surgical repairs. Orthopaedics 1(3):261–264Google Scholar
- 11.Shambaugh BC, Olsen JR, Lacerte E, Kellum E, Miller SL (2017) Orthop J Sports Med 17(5):11 2325967117738551Google Scholar
- 18.Blakeney WG, Zilko SR, Edmonston SJ, Schupp NE, Annear PT (2017) A prospective evaluation of proximal hamstring tendon avulsions: improved functional outcomes following surgical repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017 Jun;25(6):1943–1950Google Scholar
- 20.Feucht MJ, Plath JE, Seppel G, Hinterwimmer S, Imhoff AB, Brucker PU (2014) Gross anatomical and dimensional characteristics oft he proximal hamstring origin. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [epub ahead of print, published 15 June 2014]Google Scholar
- 23.Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG (2003) Applied statistics fort he behavioral sciences. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, pp 107–110Google Scholar