Baseline clinical and MRI risk factors for hamstring reinjury showing the value of performing baseline MRI and delaying return to play: a multicentre, prospective cohort of 330 acute hamstring injuries.

OBJECTIVES: Studies identifying clinical and MRI reinjury risk factors are limited by relatively small sample sizes. This study aimed to examine the association between baseline clinical and MRI findings with the incidence of hamstring reinjuries using a large multicentre dataset. METHODS: We merged data from four prospective studies (three randomised controlled trials and one ongoing prospective case series) from Qatar and the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria included patients with MRI-confirmed acute hamstring injuries (<7 days). We performed multivariable modified Poisson regression analysis to assess the association of baseline clinical and MRI data with hamstring reinjury incidence within 2 months and 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: 330 and 308 patients were included in 2 months (31 (9%) reinjuries) and 12 months (52 (17%) reinjuries) analyses, respectively. In the 2-month analysis, the presence of discomfort during the active knee extension test was associated with reinjury risk (adjusted risk ratio (ARR) 3.38; 95% CI 1.19 to 9.64). In the 12 months analysis, the time to return to play (RTP) (ARR 0.99; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.00), straight leg raise angle on the injured leg (ARR 0.98; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.00), the presence of discomfort during active knee extension test (ARR 2.52; 95% CI 1.10 to 5.78), the extent of oedema anteroposterior on MRI (ARR 0.74; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96) and myotendinous junction (MTJ) involvement on MRI (ARR 3.10; 95% CI 1.39 to 6.93) were independently associated with hamstring reinjury. CONCLUSIONS: Two clinical findings (the presence of discomfort during active knee extension test, lower straight leg raise angle on the injured leg), two MRI findings (less anteroposterior oedema, MTJ involvement) and shorter time to RTP were independently associated with increased hamstring reinjury risk. These findings may assist the clinician to identify patients at increased reinjury risk following acute hamstring injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01812564; NCT02104258; NL2643; NL55671.018.16.

What Is the Efficacy of Intra-articular Injections in the Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Ankle osteoarthritis (OA) is painful and can impact a patient's physical and mental quality of life. Although intra-articular injections are commonly used to alleviate symptoms, there is conflicting evidence concerning their efficacy. Therefore, an updated systematic review would be informative. QUESTION/PURPOSE: In this systematic review, we asked: Are there clinically important benefits or harms associated with the use of intra-articular injections in the treatment of ankle OA? METHODS: We used PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to search for randomized controlled trials on intra-articular injections for the treatment of ankle OA in June 2021, and updated the search in January 2022; eligible dates were from the date of inception of each database through January 2022. Reference lists of eligible studies and previous reviews were manually screened. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility. We included seven studies. Three compared hyaluronic acid (HA) with saline, one compared HA with exercise, one compared four different regimens of HA [ 34 ], one compared platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with saline, and one compared botulinum toxin Type A (BoNT-A) with HA. A total of 340 patients were included: 141 in the HA arms, 48 in the PRP arm, 38 in the BoNT-A arm, and 113 in the saline arms. Across all studies, the mean age was 52 ± 21 years, and 35% were women (119 of 340 patients). Methodologic quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Of the included studies, the risk of bias was low in two studies, presented some concerns in one study, and was high in four studies. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, the level of evidence was very low for HA, moderate for PRP, and very low for BoNT-A. The level of heterogeneity was high, and we opted to perform a systematic review rather than a meta-analysis. A clinically relevant difference was based on whether the between-group difference surpassed the cutoff point determined as the minimum clinically important difference. RESULTS: No clinically relevant differences were found among HA, PRP, and BoNT-A and their control groups at 3, 6, or 12 months. No studies reported any serious adverse events in any treatment group. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of observed efficacy in this systematic review, these treatments should not be used in practice until or unless future high-quality studies find evidence of efficacy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.