Open Repair of Complete Proximal Hamstring Avulsions in Workers’ Compensation Patients

Abstract

Background: Several studies have reported excellent results after surgical repair of proximal hamstring avulsions. However, the effect on these patients of receiving workers’ compensation has not yet been explored. Hypothesis: Workers’ compensation patients undergoing proximal hamstring repair of complete tears will have similar outcomes when compared with a matched control group of non–workers’ compensation patients. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Workers’ compensation patients who underwent complete proximal hamstring avulsion open repair between 2010 and 2019 were identified (WC group). A control group was matched by age (±3 years), sex, and body mass index (BMI; ±3). Demographics and patient-reported outcome measures were compared, including standard and custom Marx activity rating scale (MARS), standard and custom lower extremity functional scale (LEFS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Rate and time to return to work were recorded. Results: The WC group was composed of 20 patients (8 men, 12 women) with a mean age of 52.3 years and BMI of 32.4. The 20 matched controls (8 men, 12 women) who underwent repair had a mean age of 50.6 years and a mean BMI of 31.2. There was no difference between the groups regarding age ( P = .924), sex ( P > .999), or BMI ( P = .330). The WC group reported similar mean MARS (3.3 vs 5.4; P = .174), custom MARS (87.5 vs 97.0; P = .215), and VAS pain (3.3 vs 3.8; P = .698) scores compared with controls. However, the WC group had significantly lower standard LEFS (69.1 vs 94.1; P < .001) and custom LEFS (62.3 vs 87.9; P < .001) scores, returned to work at a lower rate (70.0% vs 94.1%; P = .039), and required more time to return to work after repair (4.3 vs 3.5 months; P = .029) compared with controls. Conclusion: Workers’ compensation patients who underwent open proximal hamstring repair for complete avulsions experienced inferior patient-reported outcomes, required more time to return to work, and returned to work at a lower rate than a matched control group.