RESUMO
Objectives: To determine the number of matches to return to pre-injury match running performance after sustaining an acute hamstring injury. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, the injuries of the players of the first, Under21, Under19, Under18 and Under17 teams of a professional football club in the period 2017-2020 were analysed. Acute hamstring injuries with a minimal absence from training or match play of 7 days were included. For running performance, we assessed the following variables: maximal velocity (km/hour), total distance, high-intensity distance (17.5-22.5 km/hour) and sprint distance (>22.5 km/hour). We calculated the average and 95% CI for these variables during the last five matches before the injury. The primary outcome was the number of matches to reach maximal velocity within the 95% CI of the player's individual pre-injury performance. Secondary outcome scores included the duration (in days and matches) to reach the other running performance variables. Results: 18 hamstring injuries in 15 players were included. 15 out of 18 injuries (83%) showed a return to pre-injury maximal velocity in the second match after return to play. The median number of matches to return to pre-injury maximal velocity was 2 (IQR 1-2). In the first match after return to play, pre-injury total distance was reached in 100% of the injuries, pre-injury sprint distance was reached in 94% of the injuries and pre-injury high-intensity distance was reached in 89% of the injuries. Conclusion: Following an acute hamstring injury in elite football, pre-injury match running performance is reached in the first or second match.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported on the promising effects of changing running style in patients with chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) using a 6-week training program aimed at adopting a forefoot strike technique. This study expands that work by comparing a 6-week in-house, center-based run training program with a less extensive, supervised, home-based run training program (50% home training). HYPOTHESIS: An alteration in running technique will lead to improvements in CECS complaints and running performance, with the less supervised program producing less dramatic results. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Nineteen patients with CECS were prospectively enrolled. Postrunning intracompartmental pressure (ICP), run performance, and self-reported questionnaires were taken for all patients at baseline and after 6 weeks of running intervention. Questionnaires were also taken from 14 patients (7 center-based, 6 home-based) 4 months posttreatment. RESULTS: Significant improvement between preintervention and postintervention rates was found for running distance (43%), ICP values (36%), and scores on the questionnaires Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE; 36%), Lower Leg Outcome Survey (LLOS; 18%), and Patient Specific Complaints (PSC; 60%). The mean posttreatment score on the Global Rating of Change (GROC) was between +4 and +5 ("somewhat better" to "moderately better"). In 14 participants (74%), no elevation of pain was reported posttreatment, compared with 3 participants (16%) at baseline; in all these cases, the running test was aborted because of a lack of cardiorespiratory fitness. Self-reported scores continued to improve 4 months after the end of the intervention program, with mean improvement rates of 48% (SANE), 26% (LLOS), and 81% (PSC). The mean GROC score improved to +6 points ("a great deal better"). CONCLUSION: In 19 patients diagnosed with CECS, a 6-week forefoot running intervention performed in both a center-based and home-based training setting led to decreased postrunning lower leg ICP values, improved running performances, and self-assessed leg condition. The influence of training group was not statistically significant. Overall, this is a promising finding, taking into consideration the significantly reduced investments in time and resources needed for the home-based program.
