Proximal Hamstring Avulsions: Surgical Versus Conservative Treatment Using a Shared Decision-Making Strategy

Abstract

Background: Surgical treatment of patients with proximal hamstring avulsions provides good results; however, less is known about the outcome in patients who are offered conservative treatment. Purpose: To investigate the effect of surgical or conservative treatment (decided by a shared decision strategy) of proximal hamstring avulsions. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 24 patients with magnetic resonance imaging–verified proximal hamstring avulsion were included and had either surgical treatment (11 patients, 45% women; mean age, 50 ± 16 years) or conservative treatment (13 patients, 46% women; mean age, 50 ± 17 years). At baseline, 6 months and 12 months, all patients answered the Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT) (0-100 scale) and Hip Sports Activity Scale (0-8 scale). Patients had their maximal hip extension strength and maximal strength at 30° and 90° of knee flexion measured in newton meters per kilogram using a handheld dynamometer. A minimal important change in PHAT was considered >7 points and a minimal important change in strength was considered >0.15 N·m/kg, respectively. Results: The surgical group had a shorter time from injury to initiation of treatment compared with the conservative group (median: 15 vs 64 days; P = .02). The surgical group had a greater amount of retraction of the tendons compared with the conservative group (3 vs 2 cm; P = .04). From baseline to 12-month follow-up, the surgical and conservative groups improved their mean PHAT scores (35 points [95 CI, 24-45 points] and 20 points [95% CI, 9-31 points], respectively) reaching a median of 79 points (interquartile range [IQR], 66-95 points) in the surgical group and 75 points (IQR, 66-85 points) in the conservative group at the 12-month follow-up. Their Hip Sports Activity Scale levels at 12 months were 3 points (95% CI, 1-4 points) and 1 point (95% CI, 0-3 points) (not significant). Furthermore, the surgical and conservative groups improved their maximal hip extension strength by 0.61 N·m/kg (IQR, 0.42-0.80 N·m/kg) and 0.62 N·m/kg (IQR, 0.13-1.10 N·m/kg), respectively. Their maximal knee flexion strength at 30° improved by 0.52 N·m/kg (IQR, 0.29-0.74 N·m/kg) and 0.32 N·m/kg (IQR, 0.12-0.52 N·m/kg) and their maximal knee flexion strength at 90° improved by 0.28 N·m/kg (IQR, 0.19-0.37 N·m/kg) and 0.22 N·m/kg (IQR, 0.02-0.41 N·m/kg). At the 12-month follow-up, the side-to-side difference in maximal muscle strength was 6% and 7%, respectively, during hip extension and 19% to 25% and 16% to 17%, respectively, during knee flexion. Conclusion: Twelve months after treatment of proximal hamstring avulsion, good clinical outcomes were seen when using a shared decision strategy regardless of whether the strategy led to surgical or conservative treatment.