ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024
Conservative management of proximal hamstring avulsion: A clinical study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between home-based and supervised rehabilitation protocols after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Proximal Hamstring Repairs Show Similar Load to Failure to Intact Hamstring Tendons: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Biomechanical Investigations.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Review
- No difference in patient-reported outcomes between operative and non-operative management of proximal hamstring injuries, but return to sports is higher in operative treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The management of proximal hamstring tear (PHT) is debated and consensus regarding recommended measures and individual treatment regimens is lacking. The present investigation evaluated the efficacy of a conservative management of partial and complete PHT. Methods: The present observational study was conducted following the STROBE statement. In June 2018 the medical databases of the BG Klinikum Bergmannstrost Halle, Germany were accessed. All the patients with PHT were retrieved. The outcomes of interest were to evaluate the clinical examination, PROMs, imaging, and isokinetic muscle strength at the baseline and last follow-up. Results: 31 patients were enrolled in the present study. Nine patients (29 % (9 of 31) described local pain at the ischial tuberosity in sitting situations and also in manual palpation. A persistent gap in the tendon string beneath the tuberosity in manual palpation was reported in 25.8 % (8 of 31). The mean VAS at the last follow-up was 2.3 ± 2.3. The mean LEFS score was 50.9 ± 18.8.Control MRI at follow-up showed scarring restitution in the proximal tendon in all patients in the partial tear group. In the complete tear group, a persisting defect state of the proximal tendon course was found in 45 % (9 of 20). The injured side achieved 81.5 ± 22.2 % of the force of the uninjured side, measured in the flexion movement at 60°/s. At an angular velocity of 240°/s, 83.2 ± 26.3 % of the force of the uninjured side was achieved. Conclusion: According to the main findings of the present study, conservative therapy of PTH tears is associated with good clinical outcomes. High-quality investigations are required to establish the proper therapeutic algorithm and advantages of conservative management compared to a surgical approach. Level of evidence: Level III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.