Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38405008›Full record

ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024

Systematic Review of Bracing After Proximal Hamstring Repair.

Phillip B Wyatt, Tiffany D Ho, Haleigh M Hopper, James R Satalich, Conor N O'Neill, John Cyrus, Alexander R Vap, Robert O'Connell

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Phillip B WyattVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Tiffany D HoVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Haleigh M HopperVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
James R SatalichDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Conor N O'NeillDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
John CyrusVirginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Alexander R VapDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Robert O'ConnellDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Virginia Commonwealth University · USUniversity Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Traditionally, postoperative rehabilitation protocols after proximal hamstring repair (PHR) for avulsion of the proximal hamstring tendon from its ischial insertion recommend bracing the hip and/or knee to protect the fixation. However, because of the cumbersome nature of these orthoses, recent studies have investigated outcomes in patients with postoperative protocols that do not include any form of postoperative bracing. Purpose: To synthesize the current body of evidence concerning bracing versus nonbracing postoperative management of PHR. Study Design: Systematic review; level of evidence, 4. Methods: Using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we conducted a thorough search of the PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Embase (OVID) databases on March 24, 2023. We analyzed complication rates, reoperation rates, patient satisfaction, return to sport, and patient-reported outcomes of studies that used postoperative bracing versus studies that used no postoperative bracing after PHR with at least 12 months of follow-up. A total of 308 articles were identified after initial search. Results: In total, 25 studies were included in this review: 18 studies (905 patients) on bracing and 7 studies (291 patients) on nonbracing after PHR. The overall complication rate in the braced patients was found to be 10.9%, compared with 12.7% in nonbraced patients. The rate of reoperation due to retear of the proximal hamstring was found to be 0.05% in braced patients and 3.1% in nonbraced patients. Patient-reported outcome measures were found to be higher at the final follow-up in braced versus nonbraced patients, and patient satisfaction was found to be 94.7% in braced studies compared with 88.9% in nonbraced studies. The rate of 12-month return to sport in athletic patients was 88.4% with bracing and 82.7% without bracing. Conclusion: The findings of this review demonstrated lower complication and reoperation rates, higher patient-reported outcome scores, higher patient satisfaction, and a higher rate of return to sport in braced patients compared with nonbraced patients.

Indexed as

accelerated rehabilitationpostoperative bracingproximal hamstring avulsionproximal hamstring repair

Identifiers

PMID38405008
PMCPMC10894551
OpenAlexW4392111928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.