Arnlaug Wangensteen1,2, Ali Guermazi3, Johannes L Tol4,5,6, Frank W Roemer3,7, Bruce Hamilton8, Juan-Manuel Alonso9, Rodney Whiteley9, Roald Bahr9,10. 1. Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, PO Box 29222, Doha, Qatar. arnlaug.wangensteen@nih.no. 2. Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre, Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway. arnlaug.wangensteen@nih.no. 3. Quantitative Imaging Centre, Department of Radiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, PO Box 29222, Doha, Qatar. Johannes.tol@aspetar.com. 5. Amsterdam Centre for Evidence Sports Medicine, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Johannes.tol@aspetar.com. 6. The Sports Physician group, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Johannes.tol@aspetar.com. 7. Department of Radiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany. 8. High Performance Sport NZ, Millennium Institute of Sport and Health, Mairangi Bay, Auckland, New Zealand. 9. Aspetar Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Hospital, PO Box 29222, Doha, Qatar. 10. Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre, Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine agreement between modified Peetrons, Chan acute muscle strain injury classification and British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification (BAMIC) and to investigate their associations and ability to predict time to return to sport (RTS). METHODS: Male athletes (n=176) with acute hamstring injury and MRI (1.5T) ≤5 days were followed until RTS. MRIs were scored using standardised forms. RESULTS: For MRI-positive injuries there was moderate agreement in severity grading (κ = 0.50-0.56). Substantial variance in RTS was demonstrated within and between MRI categories. Mean differences showed an overall main effect for severity grading (p < 0.001), but post hoc pairwise comparisons for BAMIC (grade 0a/b vs. 1, p = 0.312; 1 vs 2, p = 0.054; 0a/b vs 2, p < 0.001; 1 vs 3, p < 0.001) and mean differences for anatomical sites (BAMIC a-c, p < 0.001 [a vs b, p = 0.974; a vs c, p = 0.065; b vs c, p = 0.007]; Chan anatomical sites 1-5, p < 0.077; 2A-C, p = 0.373; 2a-e, p = 0.008; combined BAMIC, p < 0.001) varied. For MRI-positive injuries, total explained RTS variance was 7.6-11.9% for severity grading and BAMIC anatomical sites. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide overlap between/variation within the grading/classification categories. Therefore, none of the classification systems could be used to predict RTS in our sample of MRI-positive hamstring injuries. KEY POINTS: • Days to RTS varied greatly within the grading and classification categories. • Days to RTS varied greatly between the grading and classification categories. • Using MRI classification systems alone to predict RTS cannot be recommended. • The specific MRI classification used should be reported to avoid miscommunication.
OBJECTIVES: To determine agreement between modified Peetrons, Chan acute muscle strain injury classification and British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification (BAMIC) and to investigate their associations and ability to predict time to return to sport (RTS). METHODS: Male athletes (n=176) with acute hamstring injury and MRI (1.5T) ≤5 days were followed until RTS. MRIs were scored using standardised forms. RESULTS: For MRI-positive injuries there was moderate agreement in severity grading (κ = 0.50-0.56). Substantial variance in RTS was demonstrated within and between MRI categories. Mean differences showed an overall main effect for severity grading (p < 0.001), but post hoc pairwise comparisons for BAMIC (grade 0a/b vs. 1, p = 0.312; 1 vs 2, p = 0.054; 0a/b vs 2, p < 0.001; 1 vs 3, p < 0.001) and mean differences for anatomical sites (BAMIC a-c, p < 0.001 [a vs b, p = 0.974; a vs c, p = 0.065; b vs c, p = 0.007]; Chan anatomical sites 1-5, p < 0.077; 2A-C, p = 0.373; 2a-e, p = 0.008; combined BAMIC, p < 0.001) varied. For MRI-positive injuries, total explained RTS variance was 7.6-11.9% for severity grading and BAMIC anatomical sites. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide overlap between/variation within the grading/classification categories. Therefore, none of the classification systems could be used to predict RTS in our sample of MRI-positive hamstring injuries. KEY POINTS: • Days to RTS varied greatly within the grading and classification categories. • Days to RTS varied greatly between the grading and classification categories. • Using MRI classification systems alone to predict RTS cannot be recommended. • The specific MRI classification used should be reported to avoid miscommunication.
Entities:
Keywords:
Classification; Hamstring injury; Magnetic resonance imaging; Radiological grading; Return to sport
Authors: Arnlaug Wangensteen; Johannes L Tol; Frank W Roemer; Roald Bahr; H Paul Dijkstra; Michel D Crema; Abdulaziz Farooq; Ali Guermazi Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2017-02-11 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Gustaaf Reurink; Elisabeth G Brilman; Robert-Jan de Vos; Mario Maas; Maarten H Moen; Adam Weir; Gert Jan Goudswaard; Johannes L Tol Journal: Sports Med Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Xavier Valle; Eduard Alentorn-Geli; Johannes L Tol; Bruce Hamilton; William E Garrett; Ricard Pruna; Lluís Til; Josep Antoni Gutierrez; Xavier Alomar; Ramón Balius; Nikos Malliaropoulos; Joan Carles Monllau; Rodney Whiteley; Erik Witvrouw; Kristian Samuelsson; Gil Rodas Journal: Sports Med Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Johannes L Tol; Bruce Hamilton; Cristiano Eirale; Patrice Muxart; Philipp Jacobsen; Rod Whiteley Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: André Gismonti Garcia; Renato Andrade; José Afonso; José Luíz Runco; Antonio Maestro; João Espregueira-Mendes Journal: J Orthop Date: 2022-04-11
Authors: Christian Ossola; Marco Curti; Marco Calvi; Sofia Tack; Stefano Mazzoni; Lucio Genesio; Massimo Venturini; Eugenio Annibale Genovese Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 3.469