New MRI muscle classification systems and associations with return to sport after acute hamstring injuries: a prospective study

  • Arnlaug Wangensteen
  • Ali Guermazi
  • Johannes L. Tol
  • Frank W. Roemer
  • Bruce Hamilton
  • Juan-Manuel Alonso
  • Rodney Whiteley
  • Roald Bahr
Musculoskeletal

Abstract

Objectives

To determine agreement between modified Peetrons, Chan acute muscle strain injury classification and British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification (BAMIC) and to investigate their associations and ability to predict time to return to sport (RTS).

Methods

Male athletes (n=176) with acute hamstring injury and MRI (1.5T) ≤5 days were followed until RTS. MRIs were scored using standardised forms.

Results

For MRI-positive injuries there was moderate agreement in severity grading (κ = 0.50–0.56). Substantial variance in RTS was demonstrated within and between MRI categories. Mean differences showed an overall main effect for severity grading (p < 0.001), but post hoc pairwise comparisons for BAMIC (grade 0a/b vs. 1, p = 0.312; 1 vs 2, p = 0.054; 0a/b vs 2, p < 0.001; 1 vs 3, p < 0.001) and mean differences for anatomical sites (BAMIC a–c, p < 0.001 [a vs b, p = 0.974; a vs c, p = 0.065; b vs c, p = 0.007]; Chan anatomical sites 1–5, p < 0.077; 2A–C, p = 0.373; 2a–e, p = 0.008; combined BAMIC, p < 0.001) varied. For MRI-positive injuries, total explained RTS variance was 7.6–11.9% for severity grading and BAMIC anatomical sites.

Conclusions

There was wide overlap between/variation within the grading/classification categories. Therefore, none of the classification systems could be used to predict RTS in our sample of MRI-positive hamstring injuries.

Key points

Days to RTS varied greatly within the grading and classification categories.

Days to RTS varied greatly between the grading and classification categories.

Using MRI classification systems alone to predict RTS cannot be recommended.

The specific MRI classification used should be reported to avoid miscommunication.

Keywords

Hamstring injury Magnetic resonance imaging Radiological grading Classification Return to sport 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff of the Qatar National Sports Medicine Program (NSMP), the Sports Medicine Physicians and the staff in the Outpatient Department, and the staff of the Radiology Department, the Rehabilitation Department and the Surgery Department at Aspetar for their contribution to the study. Our sincere thanks are directed to Aziz Farooq for assisting with the statistical analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Arnlaug Wangensteen

Conflict of interest

The following authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies:

Outside the submitted work, AG is a consultant to Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Sanofi-Aventis, GE Healthcare, TissueGene and OrthoTrophix. AG is also president and a shareholder of Boston Imaging Core Lab, LLC (BICL), which provides image assessment services. FWR is a shareholder of BICL. JLT’s institutes have received funding from Arthrex and Biomet for conducting RCTs on the value of PRP in hamstring and Achilles tendon injuries. JLT received no personal compensation.

Statistics and biometry

Abdulaziz Farooq kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Study subject or cohort overlap

Some study subjects have been previously reported in:

Wangensteen A, Tol JL, Roemer FW, Bahr R, Dijkstra HP, Crema MD, Farooq A, Guermazi A. Intra- and interrater reliability of three different MRI grading and classification systems after acute hamstring injuries. Eur J Radiol. 2017 Apr;89:182–190. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.010. Epub 2017 Feb 11.

Wangensteen A, Almusa E, Boukarroum S, Farooq A, Hamilton B, Whiteley R, Bahr R, Tol JL. MRI does not add value over and above patient history and clinical examination in predicting time to return to sport after acute hamstring injuries: a prospective cohort of 180 male athletes. Br J Sports Med. 2015 Dec;49(24):1579–87. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2015-094892. Epub 2015 Aug 24.

Methodology

• prospective

• observational, prognostic

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2017_5125_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 18.8 kb)
330_2017_5125_MOESM2_ESM.docx (29 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 28.7 kb)
330_2017_5125_MOESM3_ESM.docx (6.1 mb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 6.11 mb)

References

  1. 1.
    Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Es N, Wieldraaijer T et al (2012) Diagnosis and prognosis of acute hamstring injuries in athletes. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:500–509CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Koulouris G, Connell D (2005) Hamstring muscle complex: an imaging review. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc 25:571–586Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hamilton B, Valle X, Rodas G et al (2015) Classification and grading of muscle injuries: a narrative review. Br J Sports Med 49:306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grassi A, Quaglia A, Canata GL, Zaffagnini S (2016) An update on the grading of muscle injuries: a narrative review from clinical to comprehensive systems. Joints 4:39–46CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ekstrand J, Healy JC, Waldén M et al (2012) Hamstring muscle injuries in professional football: the correlation of MRI findings with return to play. Br J Sports Med 46:112–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan O, Del Buono A, Best TM, Maffulli N (2012) Acute muscle strain injuries: a proposed new classification system. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:2356–2362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pollock N, James SLJ, Lee JC, Chakraverty R (2014) British athletics muscle injury classification: a new grading system. Br J Sports Med 48:1347–1351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peetrons P (2002) Ultrasound of muscles. Eur Radiol 12:35–43CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hallén A, Ekstrand J (2014) Return to play following muscle injuries in professional footballers. J Sports Sci 32:1229–1236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ekstrand J, Lee JC, Healy JC (2016) MRI findings and return to play in football: a prospective analysis of 255 hamstring injuries in the UEFA Elite Club Injury Study. Br J Sports Med 50:738–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reurink G, Whiteley R, Tol JL (2015) Hamstring injuries and predicting return to play: “bye-bye MRI?”. Br J Sports Med 49:1162–1163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wangensteen A, Almusa E, Boukarroum S et al (2015) MRI does not add value over and above patient history and clinical examination in predicting time to return to sport after acute hamstring injuries: a prospective cohort of 180 male athletes. Br J Sports Med 49:1579–1587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pollock N, Patel A, Chakraverty J et al (2016) Time to return to full training is delayed and recurrence rate is higher in intratendinous (’c’) acute hamstring injury in elite track and field athletes: clinical application of the British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification. Br J Sports Med 50:305–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamilton B, Tol JL, Almusa E et al (2015) Platelet-rich plasma does not enhance return to play in hamstring injuries: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Sports Med 49:943–950CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wangensteen A, Tol JL, Roemer FW et al Intra- and interrater reliability of three different MRI grading and classification systems after acute hamstring injuries. Eur J Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.010
  16. 16.
    Patel A, Chakraverty J, Pollock N et al (2015) British athletics muscle injury classification: a reliability study for a new grading system. Clin Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.08.009
  17. 17.
    Tol JL, Hamilton B, Eirale C et al (2014) At return to play following hamstring injury the majority of professional football players have residual isokinetic deficits. Br J Sports Med.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-093016
  18. 18.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Altman DG (1991) Practical Statistics for Medical Reasearch, 1st edn. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2013) Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th edn. Pearson Education, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Slavotinek JP, Verrall GM, Fon GT (2002) Hamstring injury in athletes: using MR imaging measurements to compare extent of muscle injury with amount of time lost from competition. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:1621–1628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Verrall GM, Slavotinek JP, Barnes PG, Fon GT (2003) Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Clinical Findings in 83 Athletes with Posterior Thigh Injury Comparison of Clinical Findings with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Documentation of Hamstring Muscle Strain*. Am J Sports Med 31:969–973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Connell DA, Schneider-Kolsky ME, Hoving JL et al (2004) Longitudinal study comparing sonographic and MRI assessments of acute and healing hamstring injuries. Am J Roentgenol 183:975–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schneider-Kolsky ME (2006) A Comparison Between Clinical Assessment and Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Acute Hamstring Injuries. Am J Sports Med 34:1008–1015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Silder A (2013) Clinical and Morphological Changes Following 2 Rehabilitation Programs for Acute Hamstring Strain Injuries: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.  https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2013.4452
  26. 26.
    Askling CM, Tengvar M, Saartok T, Thorstensson A (2007) Acute first-time hamstring strains during high-speed running: a longitudinal study including clinical and magnetic resonance imaging findings. Am J Sports Med 35:197–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Askling CM, Tengvar M, Thorstensson A (2013) Acute hamstring injuries in Swedish elite football: a prospective randomised controlled clinical trial comparing two rehabilitation protocols. Br J Sports Med.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-092165
  28. 28.
    Gibbs NJ, Cross TM, Cameron M, Houang MT (2004) The accuracy of MRI in predicting recovery and recurrence of acute grade one hamstring muscle strains within the same season in Australian Rules football players. J Sci Med Sport 7:248–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Comin J, Malliaras P, Baquie P et al (2012) Return to Competitive Play After Hamstring Injuries Involving Disruption of the Central Tendon. Am J Sports Med 41:111–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reurink G, Brilman EG, de Vos R-J et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging in acute hamstring injury: can we provide a return to play prognosis? Sports Med Auckl NZ 45:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Moen MH, Reurink G, Weir A et al (2014) Predicting return to play after hamstring injuries. Br J Sports Med.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-093860
  32. 32.
    Cross TM, Gibbs N, Houang MT, Cameron M (2004) Acute quadriceps muscle strains: magnetic resonance imaging features and prognosis. Am J Sports Med 32:710–719.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Balius R, Maestro A, Pedret C et al (2009) Central aponeurosis tears of the rectus femoris: practical sonographic prognosis. Br J Sports Med 43:818–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pedret C, Rodas G, Balius R, et al (2015) Return to Play After Soleus Muscle Injuries. Orthop J Sports Med 3. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967115595802
  35. 35.
    Brukner P, Connell D (2016) “Serious thigh muscle strains”: beware the intramuscular tendon which plays an important role in difficult hamstring and quadriceps muscle strains. Br J Sports Med 50:205–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Valle X, Alentorn-Geli E, Tol JL et al (2016) Muscle Injuries in Sports: A New Evidence-Informed and Expert Consensus-Based Classification with Clinical Application. Sports Med Auckl NZ.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0647-1
  37. 37.
    Mueller-Wohlfahrt H-W, Haensel L, Mithoefer K et al (2012) Terminology and classification of muscle injuries in sport: The Munich consensus statement. Br J Sports Med 47:342–350CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ardern CL, Glasgow P, Schneiders A et al (2016) 2016 Consensus statement on return to sport from the First World Congress in Sports Physical Therapy, Bern. Br J Sports Med 50:853–864CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnlaug Wangensteen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ali Guermazi
    • 3
  • Johannes L. Tol
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
  • Frank W. Roemer
    • 3
    • 6
  • Bruce Hamilton
    • 7
  • Juan-Manuel Alonso
    • 1
  • Rodney Whiteley
    • 1
  • Roald Bahr
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine HospitalDohaQatar
  2. 2.Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre, Department of Sports MedicineNorwegian School of Sport SciencesOsloNorway
  3. 3.Quantitative Imaging Centre, Department of RadiologyBoston University School of MedicineBostonUSA
  4. 4.Amsterdam Centre for Evidence Sports MedicineAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.The Sports Physician groupOLVGAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  7. 7.High Performance Sport NZMillennium Institute of Sport and HealthAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations