English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:   No previous study has compared the outcomes of repair for partial and complete proximal hamstring ruptures at various intervals after the injury.Purpose:   The primary aim was to determine whether time from injury to surgery affected outcomes after primary repair of partial and complete proximal hamstring ruptures. The secondary aim was to assess patients’ experiences from initial evaluation to finding a treating surgeon.Study Design:   Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:   Records from 2007 to 2016 from a single surgeon’s practice were reviewed. A total of 124 proximal hamstring repair procedures in 121 patients were identified. There were 92 patients who completed questionnaires: a custom survey, the standard Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), a custom LEFS, the standard Marx activity scale, a custom Marx activity scale, and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score. Results were analyzed for partial and complete repair procedures performed at ≤3 weeks, ≤6 weeks, and &gt;6 weeks after the injury.Results:   The mean follow-up was 43 months (median, 38 months). Of 93 repair procedures reviewed, 51% (9/28 partial; 38/65 complete), 79% (16/28 partial; 57/65 complete), and 22% (12/28 partial; 8/65 complete) were performed at ≤3 weeks, ≤6 weeks, and &gt;6 weeks, respectively. At those various intervals, no statistical difference was found in standard LEFS, custom LEFS, standard Marx, custom Marx, or UCLA scores. Female sex, older age, and body mass index &gt;30 kg/m 2  were negative predictors of outcome measures. When repaired &gt;6 weeks after the injury, a greater percentage of patients reported weakness of the operative leg compared with the contralateral side (partial tears: 6.3% vs 25%, respectively; complete tears: 24.6% vs 50%, respectively) in addition to greater sitting intolerance (partial tears: 0% vs 25%, respectively; complete tears: 7.1% vs 12.5%, respectively). Patients repaired &gt;6 weeks after the injury visited, on average, 2.6 practitioners before an evaluation by the treating surgeon compared with 1.6 treated surgically at ≤6 weeks ( P = .008).Conclusion:   Patients with proximal hamstring repair performed in the acute and chronic settings can expect successful outcomes but may experience more subjective weakness and difficulty with prolonged sitting when the repair is performed &gt;6 weeks after the injury. Patients faced challenges in receiving the correct diagnosis and referral to an appropriate treating surgeon, emphasizing the need for an increased awareness of the injury.

Does Time From Injury to Surgery Affect Outcomes After Surgical Repair of Partial and Complete Proximal Hamstring Ruptures?