London International Consensus and Delphi study on hamstring injuries part 3: rehabilitation, running and return to sport.

Hamstring injuries (HSIs) are the most common athletic injury in running and pivoting sports, but despite large amounts of research, injury rates have not declined in the last 2 decades. HSI often recur and many areas are lacking evidence and guidance for optimal rehabilitation. This study aimed to develop an international expert consensus for the management of HSI. A modified Delphi methodology and consensus process was used with an international expert panel, involving two rounds of online questionnaires and an intermediate round involving a consensus meeting. The initial information gathering round questionnaire was sent to 46 international experts, which comprised open-ended questions covering decision-making domains in HSI. Thematic analysis of responses outlined key domains, which were evaluated by a smaller international subgroup (n=15), comprising clinical academic sports medicine physicians, physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons in a consensus meeting. After group discussion around each domain, a series of consensus statements were prepared, debated and refined. A round 2 questionnaire was sent to 112 international hamstring experts to vote on these statements and determine level of agreement. Consensus threshold was set a priori at 70%. Expert response rates were 35/46 (76%) (first round), 15/35 (attendees/invitees to meeting day) and 99/112 (88.2%) for final survey round. Statements on rehabilitation reaching consensus centred around: exercise selection and dosage (78.8%-96.3% agreement), impact of the kinetic chain (95%), criteria to progress exercise (73%-92.7%), running and sprinting (83%-100%) in rehabilitation and criteria for return to sport (RTS) (78.3%-98.3%). Benchmarks for flexibility (40%) and strength (66.1%) and adjuncts to rehabilitation (68.9%) did not reach agreement. This consensus panel recommends individualised rehabilitation based on the athlete, sporting demands, involved muscle(s) and injury type and severity (89.8%). Early-stage rehab should avoid high strain loads and rates. Loading is important but with less consensus on optimum progression and dosage. This panel recommends rehabilitation progress based on capacity and symptoms, with pain thresholds dependent on activity, except pain-free criteria supported for sprinting (85.5%). Experts focus on the demands and capacity required for match play when deciding the rehabilitation end goal and timing of RTS (89.8%). The expert panellists in this study followed evidence on aspects of rehabilitation after HSI, suggesting rehabilitation prescription should be individualised, but clarified areas where evidence was lacking. Additional research is required to determine the optimal load dose, timing and criteria for HSI rehabilitation and the monitoring and testing metrics to determine safe rapid progression in rehabilitation and safe RTS. Further research would benefit optimising: prescription of running and sprinting, the application of adjuncts in rehabilitation and treatment of kinetic chain HSI factors.

London International Consensus and Delphi study on hamstring injuries part 2: operative management.

The key indications for surgical repair of hamstring injuries (HSIs) remain unclear in the literature due to a lack of high-level evidence and expert knowledge. The 2020 London International Hamstring Consensus meeting aimed to highlight clear surgical indications and to create a foundation for future research. A literature review was conducted followed by a modified Delphi process, with an international expert panel. Purposive sampling was used with two rounds of online questionnaires and an intermediate round involving a consensus meeting. The initial information gathering (round 1) questionnaire was sent to 46 international experts, which comprised open-ended questions covering decision-making domains in HSI. Thematic analysis of responses outlined key domains, which were evaluated by a smaller international subgroup (n=15) comprising clinical academic sports medicine physicians, physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons in a consensus meeting. After group discussion of each domain, a series of consensus statements were prepared, debated and refined. A round 2 questionnaire was sent to 112 international hamstring experts to vote on these statements and determine level of agreement. The consensus threshold was set a priori at 70% agreement. Rounds 1 and 2 survey respondents were 35/46 (76%) and 99/112 (88.4%), respectively. The consensus group agreed that the indications for operative intervention included: gapping at the zone of tendinous injury (87.2% agreement) and loss of tension (70.7%); symptomatic displaced bony avulsions (72.8%); and proximal free tendon injuries with functional compromise refractory to non-operative treatment (72.2%). Other important considerations for operative intervention included: the demands of the athlete/patient and the expected functional outcome (87.1%) based on the anatomy of the injury; the risk of functional loss/performance deficit with non-operative management (72.2%); and the capacity to restore anatomy and function (87.1%). Further research is needed to determine whether surgery can reduce the risk of reinjury as consensus was not reached within the whole group (48.2%) but was agreed by surgeons (70%) in the cohort. The consensus group did not support the use of corticosteroids or endoscopic surgery without further evidence. These guidelines will help standardise treatment of HSIs, specifically the indications and decision-making for surgical intervention.

London International Consensus and Delphi study on hamstring injuries part 1: classification.

Muscle injury classification systems for hamstring injuries have evolved to use anatomy and imaging information to aid management and prognosis. However, classification systems lack reliability and validity data and are not specific to individual hamstring muscles, potentially missing parameters vital for sport-specific and activity-specific decision making. A narrative evidence review was conducted followed by a modified Delphi study to build an international consensus on best-practice decision-making for the classification of hamstring injuries. This comprised a digital information gathering survey to a cohort of 46 international hamstring experts (sports medicine physicians, physiotherapists, surgeons, trainers and sports scientists) who were also invited to a face-to-face consensus group meeting in London . Fifteen of these expert clinicians attended to synthesise and refine statements around the management of hamstring injury. A second digital survey was sent to a wider group of 112 international experts. Acceptance was set at 70% agreement. Rounds 1 and 2 survey response rates were 35/46 (76%) and 99/112 (88.4%) of experts responding. Most commonly, experts used the British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification (BAMIC) (58%), Munich (12%) and Barcelona (6%) classification systems for hamstring injury. Issues identified to advance imaging classifications systems include: detailing individual hamstring muscles, establishing optimal use of imaging in diagnosis and classification, and testing the validity and reliability of classification systems. The most used hamstring injury classification system is the BAMIC. This consensus panel recommends hamstring injury classification systems evolve to integrate imaging and clinical parameters around: individual muscles, injury mechanism, sporting demand, functional criteria and patient-reported outcome measures. More research is needed on surgical referral and effectiveness criteria, and validity and reliability of classification systems to guide management.

Acute Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES) With Blood Flow Restriction: The Effect of Restriction Pressures.

CONTEXT: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) has been shown to improve muscular strength and size better than NMES alone. However, previous studies used varied methodologies not recommended by previous NMES or BFR research. OBJECTIVE: The present study investigated the acute effects of NMES combined with varying degrees of BFR using research-recommended procedures to enhance understanding and the clinical applicability of this combination. DESIGN: Randomized crossover. SETTING: Physiology laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 20 healthy adults (age 27 [4] y; height 177 [8] cm; body mass 77 [13] kg). INTERVENTIONS: Six sessions separated by at least 7 days. The first 2 visits served as familiarization, with the experimental conditions performed in the final 4 sessions: NMES alone, NMES 40% BFR, NMES 60% BFR, and NMES 80% BFR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximal voluntary isometric contraction, muscle thickness, blood pressure, heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, and pain were all recorded before and after each condition. RESULTS: The NMES 80% BFR caused greater maximal voluntary isometric contraction decline than any other condition (-38.9 [22.3] N·m, P < .01). Vastus medialis and vastus lateralis muscle thickness acutely increased after all experimental conditions (P < .05). Pain and ratings of perceived exertion were higher after NMES 80% BFR compared with all other experimental conditions (P < .05). No cardiovascular effects were observed between conditions. CONCLUSION: The NMES combined with 80% BFR caused greater acute force decrement than the other conditions. However, greater perceptual ratings of pain and ratings of perceived exertion were observed with NMES 80% BFR. These acute observations must be investigated during chronic interventions to corroborate any relationship to changes in muscle strength and size in clinical populations.

Blood Flow Restriction Training.

Muscle weakness and atrophy are common impairments after musculoskeletal injury. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training offers the ability to mitigate weakness and atrophy without overloading healing tissues. It appears to be a safe and effective approach to therapeutic exercise in sports medicine environments. This approach requires consideration of a wide range of factors, and the purpose of our article is to provide insights into proposed mechanisms of effectiveness, safety considerations, application guidelines, and clinical recommendations for BFR training after musculoskeletal injury. Whereas training with higher loads produces the most substantial increases in strength and hypertrophy, BFR training appears to be a reasonable option for bridging earlier phases of rehabilitation when higher loads may not be tolerated by the patient and later stages that are consistent with return to sport.