International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 10, pp 2341–2347 | Cite as

Functional impairment after successful surgical reconstruction for proximal hamstring avulsion

  • Raymond BestEmail author
  • Julia Eberle
  • Florian Beck
  • Johannes Beckmann
  • Ulrich Becker
Original Paper



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.


Proximal hamstring surgery Tendon refixation Outcome measurement Return to activity 


Compliance with ethical standards

This retrospective survey does not contain any experimental studies on human participants or animals and thus meets all ethical standards described in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Cohen SB, Bradley JP (2007) Acute proximal hamstring rupture. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:350–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harris JD, Griesser MJ, Best TM, Ellis TJ (2011) Treatment of proximal hamstring ruptures – a systematic review. Int J Sports Med 32:490–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lempainen L, Banke I, Johasson BPU, Sarimo J, Orava S, Imhoff AB (2015) Clinical principles in the management of hamstring injuries. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:2449–2456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van der Made AD, Reuring G, Gouttebarge V, Tol JL, Kerkhoffs GM (2015) Outcome after surgical repair of proximal hamstring avulsions. Am J Sports Med 43(11):2841–2851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen SB, Rangavajjula A, Vyas D, Bradley JP (2012) Functional results and outcomes after repair of proximal hamstring avulsions. Am J Sports Med 40:2092–2098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rust DA, Giveans MR, Stone RM, Samuelson KM, Larson CM (2014) Functional outcomes and return to sports afetr acute repair, chronic repair, and allograft reconstruction for proximal hamstring ruptures. Am J Sports Med 42(6):1377–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blakeney WG, Zilko SR, Edmonston SJ, Schupp NE, Annear PT (2017) Proximal hamstring tendon avulsion surgery: evaluation of the Perth hamstring assessment tool. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(6):1936–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pombo M, Bradley JP (2009) Proximal hamstring avulsion injuries: a technique note on surgical repairs. Orthopaedics 1(3):261–264Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Subbu R, Benjamin – Laing H, Haddad F (2015) Timing of surgery for complete proximal hamstring avulsion injuries: successful clinical outcomes at 6 weeks, 6 months, and after 6 months of injury. Am J Sports Med 43(2):385–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bodendorfer B, Curley AJ, Kotler JA, Ryan JM, Jejurikar NS, Kumar Anagha BS, Postma WF (2017) Outcomes after operative and nonoperative treatment of proximal hamstring avulsions. Am J Sports Med Oct 1:363546517732526. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shambaugh BC, Olsen JR, Lacerte E, Kellum E, Miller SL (2017) Orthop J Sports Med 17(5):11 2325967117738551Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brucker PU, Imhoff AB (2005) Functional assessment after acute and chronic complete ruptures of the proximal hamstring tendons. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:411–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bowman KF, Cohen SB, Bradley JP (2013) Operative management of partial-thickness tears of the proximal hamstring muscles in athletes. Am J Sport Med 41(6):1363–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Birmingham P, Muller M, Wickiewicz T, Cacanaugh J, Rodeo S, Warren R (2011) Functional outcome after repair of proximal hamstring avulsions. J Boine Joint Surg (Am) 93(19):1819–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cahal J, Bush-Joseph CA, Chow A, Zelazny A, Mather RC 3rd, Lin EC, Gupta D, Verma NN (2012) Clinical and magnetic resonance imaging outcomes after surgical repair of complet proximal hamstring ruptures: does the tendon heal ? Am J Sports Med 40(10):2325–2330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Konan S, Haddad F (2010) Successful return to high level sports following early surgical repair of complete tears of the proximal hamstring tendons. Int Orthop 34(1):119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sandmann GH, Hahn D, Amereller M, Siebenlist S, Schwirtz A, Imhoff AB, Brucker PU (2016) Mid-term functional outcome and return to sports after proximal hamstring tendon repair. Int J Sports Med 37:570–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Blakeney WG, Zilko SR, Edmonston SJ, Schupp NE, Annear PT (2017) A prospective evaluation of proximal hamstring tendon avulsions: improved functional outcomes following surgical repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017 Jun;25(6):1943–1950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brucker PU, Imhoff AB (2004) Refixation of complete tendon ruptures of proximal ischio-crural muscles. Unfallchirurg 107(2):143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feucht MJ, Plath JE, Seppel G, Hinterwimmer S, Imhoff AB, Brucker PU (2014) Gross anatomical and dimensional characteristics oft he proximal hamstring origin. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [epub ahead of print, published 15 June 2014]Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL (1999) The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS): scale development, measurement properties and clinical application. Phys Ther 79:371–383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marx RG, Stump TJ, Jones EC, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF (2001) Development and evaluation of an activity rating scale for disorders of the knee. Am J Sports Med 29:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG (2003) Applied statistics fort he behavioral sciences. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, pp 107–110Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Skaara HE, Mosknes H, Frihagen F, Stuge B (2013) Self-reported and perfomrance-based functional outcomes after surgical repair of proximal hamstring avulsions. Am J Sports Med 41(11):2577–2584CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic Sports MedicineUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsSportklinik Stuttgart GmbHStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations