Department of Orthopedic Sports Medicine, University of Tuebingen, Hoppe Seyler Strasse, 672076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Department of Orthopaedics, Sportklinik Stuttgart GmbH, Taubenheimstraße 8, 70372, Stuttgart, Germany.
Int Orthop. 2019 Oct;43(10):2341-2347. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4263-6. Epub 2018 Dec 19.
Surgical refixation procedures after hamstring avulsion injuries show satisfying to excellent outcome results. However, for post-operative evaluation so far, used outcome scores were partially not injury-specific, heterogeneous, difficult to compare, and possibly overestimated due to ceiling effects. A new injury-specific assessment tool has recently been published, potentially depicting more realistic outcome results. Thus, the aim of our study was to evaluate patients after hamstring refixation surgery using previously utilized as well as the new Perth hamstring assessment tool (PHAT).
A series of operated hamstring injuries were retrospectively evaluated using the PHAT as well as the widespread, customized Lower Extremity Functional Scale (C-LEFS) and the customized Marx score (C-Marx). Scores as well as potential ceiling effects were evaluated individually, and compared and correlated to each other.
Sixty-four patients were enrolled into the survey. Forty-nine questionnaires (76%) could be evaluated. The mean total PHAT score (0-100) after 28 months (SD ± 17.0) was 74.1 (SD ± 22.5) points. Mean total C-LEFS (0-80) revealed 61.4 (SD ± 18.1) points, and the mean total C-Marx score (20) was 19.4 (SD ± 1.6) points. Pearson's correlation between the individual questionnaires was high between the PHAT and the C-LEFS (r = 0.81) and low between the PHAT and C-Marx (r = 0.52) and between C-LEFS and C-Marx (r = 0.48).
The presented study confirms good subjective functional outcomes after surgical intervention of hamstring avulsions in all scores. Nevertheless, using the PHAT, residual complaints are more common than often described in previous studies interpreting "conventional" scores. For future decision and patient guidance, more studies using injury-specific assessments such as the PHAT in combination with objective measurements are eligible.
腘绳肌腱撕脱伤后的手术修复效果令人满意。然而,到目前为止,术后评估中使用的结果评分部分不是特定于损伤的,具有异质性,难以比较,并且由于天花板效应可能被高估。最近发表了一种新的特定于损伤的评估工具,可能更能真实地反映结果。因此,我们的研究目的是使用以前使用的以及新的珀斯腘绳肌评估工具(PHAT)评估腘绳肌修复手术后的患者。
回顾性评估一系列手术治疗的腘绳肌损伤患者,使用 PHAT 以及广泛使用的定制下肢功能量表(C-LEFS)和定制 Marx 评分(C-Marx)。分别评估评分和潜在的天花板效应,并相互比较和相关。
共有 64 名患者入组该调查。49 份问卷(76%)可进行评估。28 个月(SD ± 17.0)后的 PHAT 总分(0-100)平均为 74.1(SD ± 22.5)分。C-LEFS 总分(0-80)平均为 61.4(SD ± 18.1)分,C-Marx 总分(20)平均为 19.4(SD ± 1.6)分。个体问卷之间的 Pearson 相关系数在 PHAT 和 C-LEFS 之间较高(r = 0.81),在 PHAT 和 C-Marx 之间较低(r = 0.52),在 C-LEFS 和 C-Marx 之间较低(r = 0.48)。
本研究证实,在所有评分中,手术干预腘绳肌腱撕脱伤后的主观功能结果良好。然而,使用 PHAT,残留的抱怨比以前使用“传统”评分的研究中经常描述的更为常见。为了未来的决策和患者指导,更有必要使用特定于损伤的评估工具,如 PHAT,并结合客观测量结果进行更多研究。