Practice patterns for the treatment of acute proximal hamstring ruptures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Proximal ischial hamstring avulsion injuries are relatively uncommon. As such, the management of these injuries is often highly variable. Consensus agreement is lacking for the indications for repair, along with the operative technique, and post-operative rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to survey surgeons who treat proximal hamstring avulsion injuries to identify current trends in the management of this injury. Methods: After IRB approval, a 46-question cross-sectional survey was distributed using a secure electronic survey portal. The survey sought to determine surgeon experience, diagnostic preferences, treatment patterns, surgical indications/technique, perceived patient outcomes, surgical complications, as well as post-operative management and rehab protocols. Surveys were completed electronically and anonymously, with invitations distributed to members of the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) and Arthroscopy Association of Canada (AAC). Results: A total of 108 surgeons who manage proximal hamstring injuries completed the survey. Most respondents (77%) treat one to five of these injuries per year. MRI was the preferred imaging modality to confirm diagnosis. Despite 98% of respondents indicating that there was a role for surgical management of proximal hamstring avulsions, operative treatment was reportedly undertaken in only 50% of cases seen by each respondent. The top three reported surgical indications were: number of tendons involved (most important factor = 42%, second most = 26%, third most = 13%), amount of tendon retraction (28%, 41%, 16%), and patient activity level (16%, 18%, 24%). Conclusion: Based on the practice patterns of the surgeons who completed the survey, there is continued disparity in the management of proximal hamstring avulsions. A lack of agreement exists with regards to surgical indications, operative technique, and post-operative protocols. Most striking is the rate of non-operative treatment and perceived rate of poor outcomes within this cohort. Future research should focus on objective evaluation of non-operative management, and additional variables involved in surgical treatment and post-operative rehabilitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".