MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116697394 · doi:10.1093/jhps/hnaf069.271

EP143 Endoscopic Hamstring Repair Results in Similar Return to Sport Rates and Lower Complication Rates than Open Repair

2025· article· en· W7116697394 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Cohen, Evan Fang, Zackariyah Hassan, Sean Lifshits, Axel Öhlin, Yoan Bourgeault-Gagnon, O. Ayeni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hip Preservation Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHamstringReturn to sportComplicationEndoscopyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Endoscopic repair is an emerging surgical modality for proximal hamstring ruptures, however the effect on return to sport (RTS) and sport performance outcomes compared to open repair remains unclear. Methods MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched for studies reporting sport-related outcomes of open and/or endoscopic repair of proximal hamstring ruptures. The proportion of patients who returned to preinjury or any level of sport, time to RTS, and sport-related patient-reported outcome measures were abstracted. For each repair type, a meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to pool the proportion of patients who returned to sport using a random effects model. Results Thirty-eight studies published between January 2004 and March 2025 were reviewed, including 1,684 patients (1,698 repairs, 34 studies) treated by open repair and 116 patients (117 repairs, 5 studies) by endoscopic repair. Mean follow-up time was approximately 35 months (range 6–156 months) in the open group and 32 months (range 12–77 months) in the endoscopic group. Among open repairs, the pooled rate of return to preinjury level of sport (24 studies, n = 1175) was 80.7% (95% CI, 71.4–88.6%, I2 = 93.0%). Furthermore, the pooled rate of return to any level of sport (16 studies, n = 879) was 95.0% (95% CI, 89.6–98.7%, I2 = 85.2%). Among endoscopic repairs, the pooled rate of return to preinjury level of sport was 92.3% (95% CI, 50.1–100%, I2 = 60.4%). No study on endoscopic repair reported the proportion who returned to sport at any level. Re-ruptures were reported in 43 patients (3.35%, n = 1,283, 22 studies) in the open group and 1 patient (1.6%, n = 62, 3 studies) in the endoscopic group. Reoperations were reported in 38 patients (2.8%, n = 1,369, 24 studies) in the open group and 1 patient (0.9%, n = 116, 5 studies) in the endoscopic group. Conclusion Return to sport after proximal hamstring repair is high across surgical techniques. While endoscopic repair may achieve comparable rates of return to preinjury level of sport, confidence in this estimate is limited by a lack of available data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hip Preservation SurgerySame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207