EP143 Endoscopic Hamstring Repair Results in Similar Return to Sport Rates and Lower Complication Rates than Open Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".