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.

Abduction in Proximal Hamstring Tendon Avulsion Injury Mechanism: A Report on 3 Athletes.

Proximal hamstring tendon avulsions are typically sustained during forced hip hyperflexion combined with knee extension. We present 3 cases of athletes with a proximal hamstring tendon avulsion caused by an alternative injury mechanism that also involves a considerable hip abduction component (flexion-abduction injury mechanism). All cases had at least one concurrent injury of the medial thigh muscles, either on the ipsilateral or contralateral side. The 2 elite athletes with this injury mechanism returned to sport at preinjury level relatively quickly. A history of the flexion-abduction mechanism should raise suspicion of a hamstring tendon avulsion with concomitant injury of the medial thigh muscles. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol should include both legs, and any concurrent injury may need to be addressed as well. In future studies, it would be interesting to investigate whether injury mechanism holds prognostic value in proximal hamstring tendon avulsions.

Rehabilitation after surgical treatment of peroneal tendon tears and ruptures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of the available evidence on rehabilitation programmes after operatively treated patients with peroneal tendon tearsand ruptures. METHODS: A systematic review was performed, and PubMed and EMBASE were searched for relevant studies. Information regarding the rehabilitation programme after surgical management of peroneal tendon tears and ruptures was extracted from all included studies. RESULTS: In total, 49 studies were included. No studies were found with the primary purpose to report on rehabilitation of surgically treated peroneal tendon tears or ruptures. The median duration of the total immobilization period after primary repair was 6.0 weeks (range 0-12), 7.0 weeks (range 3.0-13) after tenodesis, 6.3 weeks (range 3.0-13) after grafting, and 8.0 weeks (range 6.0-11) after end-to-end suturing. Forty one percent of the studies that reported on the start of range of motion exercises initiated range of motion within 4 weeks after surgery. No difference was found in duration of immobilization or start of range of motion between different types of surgical treatment options. CONCLUSION: Appropriate directed rehabilitation appears to be an important factor in the clinical success of surgically treated peroneal tendon tears and ruptures. There seems to be a trend towards shorter immobilization time and early range of motion, although there is no consensus in the literature on best practice recommendations for optimizing rehabilitation after surgical repair of peroneal tendon tears or ruptures. It is important to adjust the rehabilitation protocol to every specific patient for an optimal rehabilitation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review, Level IV.

WITHDRAWN: Orthotic devices for treating patellofemoral pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Patellofemoral pain syndrome is a frequently reported condition in active adults. A wide variety of conservative treatment strategies have been described. As yet, no optimal strategy has been identified. Application of orthotic devices e.g. knee braces, knee straps, forms of taping of the knee, active training devices, knee sleeves and inlay soles to support the foot have been advocated to treat this condition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of foot and knee orthotics for treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials register (Issue 2, 2000), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2000; EMBASE (January 1988 to March 2000); CINAHL (January 1982 to March 2000) and PEDro (up to March 2000). Relevant orthotic companies were contacted. The date of the most recent search was May 2000. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of knee or foot orthotics for treatment of patellofemoral pain syndrome were selected. Trials describing the use of orthotic devices in conjunction with operative treatment were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three reviewers independently assessed methodological quality of the identified trials by use of a modified version of the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group assessment tool, consisting of 11 items. Two reviewers extracted data without blinding. Trialists were contacted to obtain missing data. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials involving 362 participants were included in this review. Five other trials await possible inclusion if further information can be obtained. Due to clinical heterogeneity, we refrained from statistical pooling and conducted analysis by grading the strength of scientific evidence. The level of obtained research-based evidence was graded as limited as all trials were of low methodological quality.This limited research-based evidence showed the Protonics brace at six week follow-up was significantly more effective for decrease in pain (weighted mean difference (WMD) between groups 3.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8 to 3.6), functional improvement on the Kujala score (WMD 45.6; 95% CI 43.4 to 47.7) and change in patellofemoral congruence angle (WMD 17.2; 95% CI 14.1 to 20.3) when compared to no treatment. A comprehensive programme including tape application was significantly superior to a monitored exercise programme without tape application for decrease in worst pain (WMD 1.6; 95% CI 0.4 to 2.8) and usual pain (WMD 1.2; 95% CI 0.2 to 2.1), and clinical change and functional improvement questionnaire scores at four weeks follow-up.The trials reported statistically significant differences in patient satisfaction after applied therapy (WMD 3.3; 95% CI 0.5 to 6.1) in favour of the McConnell regimen compared with the Coumans bandage at six weeks follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from randomised controlled trials is currently too limited to draw definitive conclusions about the use of knee and foot orthotics for the treatment of patellofemoral pain. Future high quality trials in this field are warranted.