A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Inferior Clinical Outcomes Following Endoscopic Proximal Hamstring Repair in Patients With Chronic Degenerative Tears Despite the Use of Dermal Allograft Augmentation. | LitMetric

Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic proximal hamstring repair with and without dermal allograft augmentation.

Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on patients undergoing endoscopic proximal hamstring repair (PHR) and proximal hamstring repair with dermal allograft augmentation (PHR-A) by a single surgeon between 2016 and 2023. Augmentation was utilized for cases of chronic degenerative tears (≥6 weeks from the time of initial injury) where hamstring tissue quality was deemed poor intraoperatively. A survey of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was completed at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. PROMs included a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale; modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS); Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS); and a Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). The proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for PROMs were compared between groups.

Results: Sixty-four patients were included (42 PHR, 22 PHR-A). No differences were seen between the PHR and PHR-A groups in terms of age at surgery (49 ± 12 vs 54 ± 9; P = .08), sex, or body mass index (BMI). There was a significantly longer time to follow-up (41.5 ± 23.4 vs 20.1 ± 10.2 months; P < .001) in the PHR group. There were significantly greater postoperative mHHS (82.7±15.1 vs 72.0 ± 18.0; P = .02) and SANE (89.6 ± 9.9 vs 73.6 ± 22.5; P = .002) scores in the PHR group. There were no significant differences in postoperative VAS, UCLA, or HOS-SSS between groups. A greater proportion of patients in the PHR group achieved a SCB for mHHS (71% vs 36%; P = .008).

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates inferior clinical outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic proximal hamstring repair with dermal allograft augmentation compared to patients undergoing endoscopic proximal hamstring repair without augmentation.

Level Of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative case series.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.10.046DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

proximal hamstring
24
hamstring repair
24
endoscopic proximal
20
dermal allograft
16
patients undergoing
16
undergoing endoscopic
16
clinical outcomes
12
allograft augmentation
12
repair dermal
12
phr group
12

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!