ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025
Older age and a non-sporting injury mechanism are associated with re-injury and the need for revision surgery over a minimum 2-year follow-up following proximal hamstring tendon repair.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. 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.
- Pre-operative activity level and a sport or recreation injury mechanism are associated with 2-year clinical outcome after proximal hamstring tendon repair.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- Revision Endoscopic Proximal Hamstring Repair with Suture Staples.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Older age and a non-sporting injury mechanism are associated with re-injury and the need for revision surgery over a minimum 2-year follow-up following proximal hamstring tendon repair.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate revision rates and factors associated with the need for revision following proximal hamstring tendon repair.
methodsThis study included 243 patients who underwent proximal hamstring tendon repair due to an acute (n = 176) or chronic (n = 67) tear. Complications, re-injuries and re-operations were reviewed. Risk factor analysis for re-rupture within 2 years of surgery was conducted using Cox proportional hazards regression, with variables including age, body mass index (BMI), sex, mechanism of injury (sport-related or other), time from injury to surgery and comorbidities including hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia and Type 2 diabetes. Receiver operating characteristic analysis explored time-to-surgery thresholds in relation to revision.
resultsOverall, 19 (10.8%) of the acute cohort and 11 (16.4%) of the chronic cohort underwent revision surgery due to re-tearing and recurrence of symptoms. In the acute cohort, an increased risk of re-injury was associated with a non-sporting (versus sporting) injury (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-10.39; p = 0.033) and an older age (HR = 1.04 per year; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08; p = 0.031). In the chronic cohort, there were no significant associations between age, BMI, sex or comorbidities, with revision surgery. The optimal threshold for surgery for acute repairs was 30.5 days.
conclusionsA 10.8% and 16.4% revision rate was observed over a minimum 2-year follow-up following proximal hamstring repair for acute and chronic tears, respectively. For chronic tears, no variables were associated with the need for revision. However, older age and non-sporting injury were associated with a higher risk of re-injury in the acute cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective case series.
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.