Magnetic resonance imaging should be the first-line imaging modality for investigating suspected proximal hamstring avulsion injuries.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate how the initial diagnostic tool used-specifically ultrasound (US) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-for diagnosing proximal hamstring avulsion injury affects the delay before surgery and, secondarily, the outcomes of these injuries. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (2012-2020). It targeted patients primarily treated for proximal hamstring avulsion injury. It included all patients with a preoperative US and/or MRI. Patients were divided into two groups based on the initial diagnostic tool used (US-first vs. MRI-first groups). The primary outcomes measure was the time from initial injury to surgical intervention (surgical delay). The secondary outcomes were the Parisien Hamstring Avulsion Score, as well as the activity level as measured by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale and Tegner Activity Scale. RESULTS: The analysis included 392 patients with a mean age of 43.8 ± 13.6 years for the MRI-first group and 47.6 ± 12.0 years for US-first group. Patients in the MRI-first group had a significantly shorter median time from injury to surgery of 20.0 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 11.0-61.0) compared to 30 days (IQR: 18-74) in the US-first group. At the final follow-up (4.2 ± 2.2 years for the MRI-first group and 5.1 ± 1.9 years for the US-first group), the MRI-first group had significantly higher mean Tegner Activity Scale and UCLA scores than the US-first group: The Tegner Activity Scale was median 5 (IQR: 3-7) for the MRI-first group versus median 4 (IQR: 2-6) for the US-first group (p < 0.05). The UCLA scores were 7.9 ± 2.4 for the MRI-first group compared to 7.3 ± 2.4 for the US-first group (p < 0.05). This difference was more pronounced when comparing the MRI-first group with the patient-false negative initial ultrasound. No difference was found regarding the Parisien Hamstring Avulsion Score. CONCLUSION: MRI as the initial diagnostic tool for proximal hamstring avulsion injury is associated with a shorter time to surgery and better postoperative outcomes in Tegner Activity Scale and UCLA scores, compared to US. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Dynamic intermittent compression cryotherapy with intravenous nefopam results in faster pain recovery than static compression cryotherapy with oral nefopam: post-anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of dynamic intermittent compression cryotherapy (DICC) (CryoNov®) with an intravenous nefopam-based pain management protocol (DCIVNPP) in reducing post-operative pain following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) compared to static compression cryotherapy (SCC) (Igloo®) and oral Nefopam. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data including 676 patients who underwent primary ACLR in 2022. Patients were either in the DCIVNPP group or in the SCC (control group), and were matched for age, sex, and Lysholm and Tegner scores (338 per arm). The primary outcome was pain on the visual analogue scale (VAS), analyzed in relation to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds for VAS. The secondary outcome was side effects. RESULTS: Postoperative pain in the DCIVNPP group was less severe on the VAS than in the control group (p < 0.05). The maximum difference in the VAS between groups was 0.57, which is less than the MCID threshold for VAS. The DCIVNPP group crossed the PASS threshold for VAS on Day 3, sooner than the control group. The side effect profiles were similar in both groups except for higher rates of dizziness and malaise in the DCIVNPP group, and higher rates of abdominal pain in the control group. Most of the side effects decreased over time in both groups, with no significant side effects after Day 3. CONCLUSION: DCIVNPP effectively allows for faster pain recovery than in the control group. The difference in side effects between the protocols may be due to mode of administration of nefopam. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.