| Literature DB >> 23322894 |
Peter Brukner1, Andrew Nealon, Christopher Morgan, Darren Burgess, Andrew Dunn.
Abstract
Recurrent hamstring injuries are a major problem in sports such as football. The aim of this paper was to use a clinical example to describe a treatment strategy for the management of recurrent hamstring injuries and examine the evidence for each intervention. A professional footballer sustained five hamstring injuries in a relatively short period of time. The injury was managed successfully with a seven-point programme-biomechanical assessment and correction, neurodynamics, core stability, eccentric strengthening, an overload running programme, injection therapies and stretching/relaxation. The evidence for each of these treatment options is reviewed. It is impossible to be definite about which aspects of the programme contributed to a successful outcome. Only limited evidence is available in most cases; therefore, decisions regarding the use of different treatment modalities must be made by using a combination of clinical experience and research evidence.Entities:
Keywords: Exercise Rehabilitation; Hamstring Injuries; Muscle Damage/Injuries; Soccer; Soft Tissue Injuries
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23322894 PMCID: PMC4033203 DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091400
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Sports Med ISSN: 0306-3674 Impact factor: 13.800
Figure 1Axial T2-weighted image with fat saturation showing small region of muscle fibre disruption (arrows) reflecting grade 2 injury, involving aponeurosis of long head of biceps femoris.
Figure 2Axial T2-weighted image with fat saturation showing interfascicular oedema (arrows) centrally reflecting grade 1 injury, in the long head of biceps femoris.
Figure 3Axial T2-weighted image with fat saturation showing small region of muscle fibre disruption (arrows) reflecting grade 2 injury, involving the long head of biceps femoris with myofascial oedema.
Figure 4Axial T2-weighted image showing interfascicular and myofascial oedema (arrows) reflecting grade 1 injury, involving the long and short heads of biceps femoris.
Summary of features of each hamstring injury episode
| Clinical severity | Imaging severity | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Episode | Days until next episode | Onset | In | Mechanism | Clinical grade | AKE deficit | Days to walk pain free | Grade | Site | Distance from ischial tuberosity | Days to RTT | Days to RTP | Eccentric strength sessions pre-RTP | Team training sessions pre-RTP | Games missed | Games played to next episode |
| 1 | 46 | Sudden | Match | Sprint | 2 | 15° | 2 | 2 | Long head | 11.7 cm | 21 | 30 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 3 |
| 2 | 49 | Insidious | Theme park | Walking-2 days postgame | 1 | 0° | 1 | 0 | N/A | N/A | 7 | 16 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 27 | Sudden on gradual | Training | Kicking (shooting at goal) | 1 | 0° | 1 | 1 | Long head | 23.6 cm | 10 | 21 | 7 | 4 | N/A preseason | 1 |
| Day 1: epidural #1 | ||||||||||||||||
| 4 | 35 | Gradual | Match | After long high-speed run | 1 | 0° | 1 | 2 | Long head | 27.9 cm | 25 | 34 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 0 |
| Day 17: Epidural #2 | ||||||||||||||||
| 5 | Sudden | Match | Low speed run 2 min after 81 min on bench | 1 | 0° | 2 | Myo-fascial tear | Short head | 28 cm | 28 | 38 | 12 | 7 | 5 | ||
| Day 5: lumbar routine, sitting and upright MRI commence aggressive neural sliders | ||||||||||||||||
| Day 10: actovegin injections | ||||||||||||||||
Currently proposed risk factors after episode 5
| Non-modifiable risk factors | |
| History of HMI | Yes: five episodes in 5 months |
| Age>23/24 | Yes: age 26 |
| Black African/Caribbean ethnicity | Yes |
| Past ACL/major knee injury history | No: as per definition in study but Gd 3 MCL 18 months prior |
| Past osteitis pubis | No: as per definition in study but bilateral Sportsman's hernia repair 8 years prior |
| Modifiable hamstring muscle properties | |
| Bilateral hamstring strength asymmetry>8% (REFS) | No (injured side strength>uninjured side) |
| Concentric H/Q ratio<0.66 (REFS) | Yes (0.58 vs 0.62) |
| Optimum angle (REFS) | 23° (vs 24°) |
HMI, hamstring muscle injury.
Summary of the running overload programme
| Cycle | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | 50% speed+match | 60% speed+match | 70% speed+match | 80% speed+match | 85% speed+match | 90% speed+match | 95% speed+match | 100% speed+match |
| Day 2 | MAS/assess | MAS | MAS | MAS | MAS | MAS | MAS | MAS |
| Day 3 | Bike | Off | Pool | Off | Bike | Off | Pool | Off |
MAS, maximal aerobic speed.
Total training loads of the player's final ‘overload’ hamstring rehabilitation protocol compared with the previous ‘standard’ protocol
| Sessions | Duration (min) | Dist (m) | Average distance per minute | High-speed distance (m) | Average high speed distance per minute | High-speed entries | Average HR (bpm) | Training load (RPE×min) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | 22 | 1130 | 83541 | 95.7 | 8950 | 8.94 | 996 | 136 | 5905 |
| Overload | 29 | 1320 | 106225 | 107.7 | 13409 | 14.5 | 1388 | 141 | 7245 |