Operative versus Nonoperative Treatment of Proximal Hamstring Avulsions.

NEJM evidence Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1056/EVIDoa2400056
Elsa Pihl, Sofia Laszlo, Anne-Mari Rosenlund, Målfrid Holen Kristoffersen, Jörg Schilcher, Carl Johan Hedbeck, Mikael Skorpil, Chiara Micoli, Martin Eklund, Olof Sköldenberg, Frede Frihagen, Kenneth B Jonsson
{"title":"Operative versus Nonoperative Treatment of Proximal Hamstring Avulsions.","authors":"Elsa Pihl, Sofia Laszlo, Anne-Mari Rosenlund, Målfrid Holen Kristoffersen, Jörg Schilcher, Carl Johan Hedbeck, Mikael Skorpil, Chiara Micoli, Martin Eklund, Olof Sköldenberg, Frede Frihagen, Kenneth B Jonsson","doi":"10.1056/EVIDoa2400056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Operative treatment is widely used for acute proximal hamstring avulsions, but its effectiveness compared with that of nonoperative treatment has not been shown in randomized trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this noninferiority trial at 10 centers in Sweden and Norway, we enrolled patients 30 to 70 years of age with a proximal hamstring avulsion in a randomized trial and a parallel observational cohort. Treatments were operative reinsertion of the tendons or nonoperative management. The primary end point was the Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT) at 2 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included scores on the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 119 patients were enrolled in the randomized trial and 97 patients in the observational cohort. In the per-protocol analysis of the randomized trial, the mean (±standard deviation) PHAT scores were 79.9±19.5 and 78.5±19.4 in the operative and nonoperative groups, respectively (PHAT scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher function). The prespecified noninferiority limit of 10 points was not crossed (mean difference, -1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.6 to 6.2; P=0.009 for noninferiority). Analyses of secondary outcomes, including a mean difference in the LEFS score of -1.6 (95% CI, -5.2 to 2.0), aligned with the primary outcome. The observed numbers of adverse events in the randomized trial were nine in the operative group versus three in the nonoperative group (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.2). In the analysis of the observational cohort, the mean PHAT score difference between the nonoperative and operative treatment groups was -2.6 (95% CI, -9.9 to 4.6).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients 30 to 70 years of age with proximal hamstring avulsions, nonoperative treatment was noninferior to operative treatment. (Funded by Afa Försäkring and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03311997.).</p>","PeriodicalId":74256,"journal":{"name":"NEJM evidence","volume":" ","pages":"EVIDoa2400056"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEJM evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2400056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Operative treatment is widely used for acute proximal hamstring avulsions, but its effectiveness compared with that of nonoperative treatment has not been shown in randomized trials.

Methods: In this noninferiority trial at 10 centers in Sweden and Norway, we enrolled patients 30 to 70 years of age with a proximal hamstring avulsion in a randomized trial and a parallel observational cohort. Treatments were operative reinsertion of the tendons or nonoperative management. The primary end point was the Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT) at 2 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included scores on the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS).

Results: A total of 119 patients were enrolled in the randomized trial and 97 patients in the observational cohort. In the per-protocol analysis of the randomized trial, the mean (±standard deviation) PHAT scores were 79.9±19.5 and 78.5±19.4 in the operative and nonoperative groups, respectively (PHAT scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher function). The prespecified noninferiority limit of 10 points was not crossed (mean difference, -1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.6 to 6.2; P=0.009 for noninferiority). Analyses of secondary outcomes, including a mean difference in the LEFS score of -1.6 (95% CI, -5.2 to 2.0), aligned with the primary outcome. The observed numbers of adverse events in the randomized trial were nine in the operative group versus three in the nonoperative group (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.2). In the analysis of the observational cohort, the mean PHAT score difference between the nonoperative and operative treatment groups was -2.6 (95% CI, -9.9 to 4.6).

Conclusions: In patients 30 to 70 years of age with proximal hamstring avulsions, nonoperative treatment was noninferior to operative treatment. (Funded by Afa Försäkring and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03311997.).

腘绳肌腱近端撕脱的手术与非手术疗法
背景:手术治疗被广泛用于急性腘绳肌近端撕脱伤,但随机试验尚未显示手术治疗与非手术治疗的有效性:在瑞典和挪威的 10 个中心进行的这项非劣效性试验中,我们在随机试验和平行观察队列中招募了 30 至 70 岁的腘绳肌近端撕脱患者。治疗方法为肌腱手术再植或非手术治疗。主要终点是随访两年时的珀斯腘绳肌评估工具(PHAT)。次要结果包括下肢功能量表(LEFS)的评分:共有 119 名患者参加了随机试验,97 名患者参加了观察队列。在随机试验的协议分析中,手术组和非手术组的 PHAT 评分平均值(± 标准差)分别为(79.9±19.5)分和(78.5±19.4)分(PHAT 评分范围为 0 至 100 分,分数越高功能越强)。10分的预设非劣效性限制未被跨越(平均差异为-1.2;95%置信区间[CI]为-8.6至6.2;非劣效性P=0.009)。对次要结果的分析,包括LEFS评分的平均差异为-1.6(95% CI,-5.2至2.0),与主要结果一致。随机试验中观察到的不良事件数量为:手术组 9 例,非手术组 3 例(几率比 0.3;95% CI,0.1 至 1.2)。在对观察队列的分析中,非手术治疗组与手术治疗组的平均PHAT评分差异为-2.6(95% CI,-9.9至4.6):结论:对于 30 至 70 岁的腘绳肌近端撕脱患者,非手术治疗效果并不优于手术治疗。(由Afa Försäkring等人资助;ClinicalTrials.gov编号:NCT03311997)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信