Abstract
Returning athletes successfully to sport after hamstring injury can be complex. In part, this is due to the absence of evidence-based consensus and the availability of a clear return to sport definition to guide practitioners. It is further complicated by the individual context and requirements surrounding each return to sport case. While acknowledging that the return to sport decision is multifactorial and risk tolerance is unique to each case, this chapter outlines a ‘three plus one’ step return to sport continuum approach as follows: firstly, aiming to return to participation (modified training); secondly, progressing to unrestricted sport-specific training (full training); and thirdly, returning to performance (back to the same level of competition standards) plus tertiary prevention. The approach encompasses four specific domains to evaluate athlete progress: clinical, functional, sport-specific readiness and return to sport. This return to sport approach, through its four domains, presents a progressive scale of standards reflective of a graduated rehabilitation, performance and prevention process. Finally, it also includes a decision-making model for returning athletes with hamstring injuries to sport. This model recognises the multidisciplinary and shared decision-making process that is incorporated when evaluating risks related to the return to sport process.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
11.1 Introduction
Returning athletes to training and competition after hamstring injury can be complex. This is evidenced by substantial and unchanged re-injury rates associated with hamstring injury in sport over the last 30 years [1]. Most athletes return to sport (RTS) 3 weeks after a hamstring injury [2, 3]. However, about one in three athletes may re-injure in the first few weeks after returning to sport [2,3,4,5]. There is also risk to the athlete of sustaining a subsequent injury to another area of the body [6, 7]. Discussions and different opinions regarding accelerating RTS following hamstring injury have been ongoing for many years [8, 9]. Much of this debate focuses on the potential advantage of increasing the number of available players, which may increase the chance of team success. This point is balanced against the increased risk of re-injury and reduced performance of individual athletes associated with a lack of full hamstring and sprinting function. While athletes in some team sports may be able to perform and be selected to compete despite reduced hamstring function, individual athletes such as sprinters will be more directly affected. Their inability to produce maximal acceleration and velocity and thus achieve optimal running speed and performance makes an early return to competition irrelevant from a performance perspective. Recommendations and reasoning concerning RTS decisions are therefore always specific to the individual sports context and risk-taking assessment.
This chapter aims to introduce a criteria-based approach designed to monitor athlete progress, which stakeholders can collectively consider when navigating athletes through the rehabilitation and RTS phases.
11.2 Return to Sport Principles After Hamstring Injury
An evidence-based consensus on how to best return athletes to sport after hamstring injury is currently not available to practitioners. A clear RTS definition is also absent in the literature. Attempts have been made to develop consensus statements around the RTS definition, criteria and decision-making in sport generally [10] and football specifically [11, 12]. However, differences remain between these expert-based opinion pieces, evidenced by reports of different RTS criteria within the same sport [11, 12]. A group of 58 international medical experts omitted hamstring strength and training load from their RTS criteria [11], whereas a different study that involved medical practitioners from professional football clubs demonstrated a complete agreement to include hamstring strength and training load parameters in the RTS criteria-based decision-making process [12]. A recent international Sports Physical Therapy consensus statement recommended that RTS processes are aligned with the athlete’s sport and their level of participation for the planned sporting return [10]. That statement outlined three steps as part of a RTS continuum: return to participation (modified training), sport (full training) and performance (back to the same level of competition standards), which highlights a gradual progression in function while simultaneously underlining that workload (sport-specific preparation) is an important element in the criteria-based RTS process. To seamlessly map and implement ongoing strategies designed to reduce recurring and subsequent injury, we recommend that tertiary prevention is added as the ‘plus one’ to the three step RTS continuum outlined by Ardern et al. [10]. The ‘three plus one’ RTS phases following hamstring injury is outlined in Fig. 11.1. Additionally, Fig. 11.1 illustrates where each criterion is applicable in the RTS continuum according to current evidence.
This chapter also considers the steps in the Strategic Assessment of Risk and Risk Tolerance (StARRT) decision-making model [13] and current available and emerging evidence relevant to returning athletes to sport after a hamstring injury, understanding that the RTS decision is multifactorial and unique to each case and that the StARRT model might be applied at different points during the continuum.
Throughout the rehabilitation and RTS process, athlete progress can be evaluated using clinical and functional tests. Such tests can be considered not only for RTS criteria but also for tertiary prevention. This approach involves performing a range of intrinsic objective and subjective tests on the athlete in the clinical setting, evaluated by medical staff. Functional testing reflects the physical demands of the sport, athlete position and level of competition. Sport-specific readiness involves monitoring and managing workload criteria to provide data on the extent to which the athlete has trained and how well they have performed during their hamstring injury rehabilitation. Sport-specific readiness is considered a critical component in the RTS decision-making process due to its association with increased or decreased risk of injury in sports where hamstring injury is prevalent [14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Such a RTS systems approach, through four domains, presents a progressive scale of standards reflective of a graduated rehabilitation and prevention process. Data collected in each domain can be interpreted in context and assist in providing information to the stakeholders when making a shared RTS decision. The approach aims to facilitate a RTS process that evaluates athlete performance across multiple domains and criteria when transitioning towards a successful return to performance. It reinforces that the RTS process is not an isolated procedure that follows completion of the rehabilitation, but is instead a process that starts concurrently with the initiation of hamstring injury rehabilitation.
11.3 Return to Sport Decision
Elite athletes undertake a host of clinical tests during the year, e.g. baseline screening, in-season monitoring, injury diagnosis and evaluation of rehabilitation progress. Tests might be applied throughout the year to monitor athlete health states or injury susceptibility, whereas some tests are utilised at defined periods during the RTS continuum. Such an approach reflects the steps in StARRT: assessment of health, activity risk and overall context-specific risk tolerance. Specific information on relevant impairment and performance-based tests and their execution can be found in Chap. 9.
In the absence of a consensus on the best RTS criteria-based process, an overall decision-based model has been introduced to assist practitioners [21]. It provides a three-step process to consider when returning an athlete to sport after injury. The initial step involves examining medical factors to ascertain the current health status of the athlete. The second step reviews sporting risk specifically in relation to modifiable variables such as type of sport, playing position or level of competition. Finally, externally influencing factors such as time of season and pressure from athlete or third parties are considered in the process. A strategic assessment of risk and risk tolerance framework (StARRT) in relation to RTS decision-making has been proposed by Shrier [13]. This framework includes tissue health and stress level assessments of health and activity risks in relation to contextual risk tolerance [13] that may be valuable for RTS decision after hamstring injury (Fig. 11.2
).
11.3.1 Multidisciplinary Review of Standards
It is clear that most athletes RTS with hamstring impairments, which may increase the risk of re-injury. A multidisciplinary and shared decision-making process is therefore recommended [10] when evaluating an athlete’s capacity and the risk involved in returning to sport. Practitioners are advised to communicate a proposed set of standards for key stakeholders’ consideration, including seeking a consensus on the decision-making process and level of risk tolerance at the outset, to optimise rehabilitation and RTS outcomes. It reflects that, in elite and professional sport, shared-decision-making is ideally collaborative and collective; no single entity holds a veto on RTS criteria post hamstring injury. Once a multidisciplinary, shared criteria-based RTS decision has been made, the athlete should remain in tertiary prevention irrespective of whether they have returned to training, competition or top performance. Based on available data, this should be in place for at least 3 years post-injury. Planning (including roles and responsibilities) and producing the tertiary prevention programme should be part of finalising RTS processes. This is warranted due to the high rates of recurrence and subsequent injury and will involve an array of interventions including exercise programmes, load and athlete monitoring. It is acknowledged that contextual circumstances such as timing of season, athlete age, importance of event, chance of winning versus risk of losing and other ‘risk tolerance modifiers’ might influence how the four domains are utilised in individual cases within the continuum. A truly shared decision-making model collects broad perspectives that include nonphysical measures to gain understanding of the athlete’s psychological and physical readiness to RTS.
11.4 Psychological Factors in Return to Sport
At the time of RTS, athletes may develop negative psychological responses including anxiety, low self-esteem and fear [22]. These emotions can impact both on the time taken to, and level of, RTS athletes achieve post-injury [22]. The psychological responses might be heightened in athletes returning from severe injuries such as recurring, injury sequela and hamstring tendon pain. Athlete anxiety is also a potential predictor for recurring and subsequent injury at the time of RTS [23, 24]. A premature RTS can lead to fear, anxiety, recurring and subsequent injury, depression and poorer performance [25]. Psychological readiness to RTS is multifaceted, complex and reliant on several factors [26]. Validated outcome measures to monitor ‘psychological readiness’ exist, and the information might be considered in a shared multidisciplinary decision process to evaluate this parameter [22, 26] during the RTS continuum.
11.5 Sport-Specific Readiness
During the RTS process, athlete sport-specific readiness is ascertained to establish if sufficient training, workload and performance have occurred to successfully RTS at the desired level of the continuum. This process involves a gradual increase in training and workload that is monitored and managed towards performance criteria. Most sports, particularly at the elite level, require complex coordinated movements to sprint, kick or change direction at high speed. The restoration of normal sport-specific kinematics at speed should therefore be considered within progressive rehabilitation and assessed prior to RTS, as this may influence hamstring re-injury risk and optimise sporting performance [27,28,29].
11.5.1 Workload
Monitoring and management of workload has become routine in elite and professional sport. A recent consensus statement suggests that load monitoring is an essential assessment tool for determining the effectiveness of training adaptations, athlete response to training, fatigue and recovery and minimising risk of injury and illness [30]. Load is generally classified as internal or external. Internal loads refer to physiological and psychological athlete responses to external loads. The actual workload performed by the athlete in training and competition is reported as external load. Monitoring both categories of load has been recommended where possible, since they can produce diverse risk profiles [6, 15]. Load monitoring and associated athlete management is an ongoing process including periods of rehabilitation; return to participation, sport, performance; and tertiary prevention phases. Monitoring of running load is of particular interest since this is the main hamstring injury mechanism [6, 20, 31]. Commencing running during rehabilitation within 4 days of lower limb muscle injury (41% hamstring) resulted in significantly increased risks of recurring and subsequent injuries compared to when running started 5–9 days post-injury [6]. Importantly, delaying running to at least 5 days post-injury did not delay RTS [6]. Workload appears to have a greater influence on the risk of recurring and subsequent injuries than the results of clinical tests such as active knee extension and outer range isometric hamstring strength [6, 32]. Additionally, the number of training sessions completed from the time of medical clearance after injury to match play have been shown to influence muscle re-injury rates [33]. Completion of fewer than four training sessions was associated with a reinjury rate that was three-fold higher than the average muscle injury rate in professional football [33]. This risk was reduced by 13% for each additional training session completed before the first match after injury [33], and this highlights the importance of sport specific preparation and readiness as part of the RTS and tertiary prevention processes after hamstring injury.
11.5.1.1 External Load Monitoring
Monitoring workload with individual global positioning system (GPS) units produces data that might be of interest in returning athletes to sport after hamstring injury. Variables of particular interest include acceleration, deceleration and the type, speeds, volume and distances of running. It has been established that higher sampling rates of GPS units are associated with improved validity and reliability [30]. The precision of GPS running speed data is decreased in the presence of large speed variability [30]. A recent consensus statement on monitoring athlete workload with GPS recommends caution when interpreting acceleration, deceleration, change of direction and within-subject test-retest data [30]. In game scenarios, where precise athlete test-retest results from explosive actions and high-speed running are required to establish sport-specific readiness, GPS data might best be presented with indications of the minimal detectable change with 95% confidence intervals (MDC 95%CI).
11.5.1.2 Internal Load Monitoring
External load monitoring and exposure to high-speed running in particular appear to be important in the management of rehabilitation, RTS and risk with respect to hamstring injury. Internal load monitoring is also commonplace and typically includes rate of perceived exertion (RPE) [30]. RPE provides a subjective report on the athlete’s physiological and psychological response to loading. The relationship between recent and historical internal load data appears to be associated with fatigue, injury and re-injury. It may therefore be useful to monitor internal workload to monitor sport-specific readiness. However, internal load monitoring provides no correlate of high-speed running exposure.
11.5.1.2.1 Acute-to-Chronic Workload Ratio
The acute-to-chronic workload ratio (ACWR) is an index of an athlete’s workload in the most recent 1-week period (acute load) usually compared to their cumulative average workload over the last 3 or 4 weeks (chronic load) [18, 34]. The index is based on internal and/or external load data [15, 18, 35] to provide information on sport-specific readiness [36]. Inclusion of ACWR as a RTS criteria has been recommended [37] since rapid increases in acute workloads are associated with increased injury risk in a host of sports [15, 17, 18, 38] as are low chronic workloads. A high chronic load combined with a balanced acute load appears protective against injury [18]. This is an important recognition that should be reflected in rehabilitation plans by commencing modified training (return to participation) early while still considering the pathobiology of a muscle injury, to retain or regain sufficient chronic sport-specific loading. An early return to participation should be balanced against the possibility of increased recurrence and subsequent injury rates if running is commenced prematurely out of sync with muscle pathobiology [6]. Risk management of re-injury associated with ACWR as an injury risk factor is reflected in the sport-specific and decision modifiers of the StARRT framework. The actual ACWR index linked to injury or re-injury differs between sports, cohorts and individual athletes [15, 18, 34]. A universal ACWR ‘sweet spot’ does not appear applicable and the ACWR RTS criteria should reflect context-specific data. Additionally, recent discussions about how best to calculate ACWR data are ongoing and involve using rolling averages and exponentially weighted moving averages [36, 39]. Recent data show that large spikes in ACWR in either model are associated with significantly increased injury risk [36].
11.6 Ongoing Monitoring and Prevention
Passing and progressing through agreed RTS standards including all or some of the clinical, functional, sport-specific readiness and RTS criteria does not mean that an athlete has arrived at a designated end point of injury management. Once an athlete has sustained a hamstring injury, they host a potent non-modifiable injury risk factor: previous injury. A symptom or consequence of previous hamstring injury is impaired function demonstrated by deficits in: running performance [28], isometric and eccentric strength [27, 40], high-repetition concentric hamstring strength and reduced resilience to withstand fatiguing sporting demands [41] and difficulty improving Nordic exercise strength [42] for up to 3 years after the injury. Subsequently, the risk of recurring or subsequent injury is elevated [7, 43, 44]. Management should commence early, within 7 days, upon RTS [32]. This represents the stage of tertiary prevention. Tertiary prevention describes ‘clinical activities’ aimed at preventing deterioration or reducing complications of a diagnosed condition [45]. Components of tertiary prevention in relation to hamstring injury in sport include regular exposure to eccentric hamstring stimuli, high-speed running and sprinting, load monitoring and management and in-season athlete monitoring of hamstring function.
11.6.1 In-Season Athlete Monitoring of Hamstring Function
Ongoing athlete monitoring post-RTS is indicated. Hamstring function is influenced by sport-specific demands and previous injury, which suggests that hamstring injury risk is dynamic during in-season periods [41, 42, 45,46,47,49]. This is further supported by recent findings of substantially reduced resilience by previously injured hamstrings to cope with the physical demands of sport up to 2 years post-injury [41]. Single preseason or one-off RTS criterion testing of hamstring strength is unable to evaluate possible in-season fluctuations in hamstring function and increased injury susceptibility. RTS and preseason testing are therefore best served for baseline measures and preseason identification of athletes required to commence secondary or tertiary prevention. A recent systematic review recommended testing hamstring strength post competition (match play) to identify functional impairments to assist in individual athlete management [50]. Since no difference in isometric or eccentric magnitude of change post competition was found, isometric hamstring testing has been put forward as the safer option [50]. Potential test options and their respective MDC 95%CI have been outlined in the clinical assessment chapter (Chap. 9) for practitioners’ consideration. In-season monitoring of hamstring strength in athletes that never had a hamstring injury is a secondary prevention strategy. It involves a two-step clinical screening process that occurs in the subclinical stage of injury (Fig. 11.3). It is implemented in-season to facilitate early detection and management of hamstring injury susceptibility in elite athletes [48, 49, 51]. The same in-season monitoring process specifically for previously injured athletes occurs in tertiary prevention. Considering the elevated susceptibility of hamstring injury recurrence, associated with RTS in the short term and previous injury history in the long term, continuous athlete monitoring of hamstring strength is indicated as part of a tertiary prevention strategy during and beyond all three phases of this RTS process.
11.7 Conclusion
RTS after hamstring injuries involves multidisciplinary expertise collaborating to reach a shared decision about the case-specific requirements to facilitate a successful athlete outcome. The shared decision-making process is supported by the StARRT to reflect the individual context of each case. This chapter reflects that rehabilitation is gradual and progressive which involves a graded return to modified training (participation), full training (sport) and eventually the same level of competition standards (performance). A ‘three plus one’ approach is introduced by the addition of tertiary prevention to seamlessly map and implement ongoing management aimed at reducing the susceptibility of re-injury after returning to sport. This RTS approach is supported by four domains that monitor athlete progressions against clinical, functional, sport-specific readiness and RTS standards. Ongoing monitoring after hamstring injury is recommended to track functional and performance impairments which typically persist and possibly contribute to elevated susceptibility to reinjury after RTS.
References
van der Horst N, Van De Hoef S, Reurink G, Huisstede B, Backx F. Return to play after hamstring injuries: a qualitative systematic review of definitions and criteria. Sports Med. 2016;46:899–912.
Ekstrand J, Healy JC, Waldén M, Lee JC, English B, Hägglund M. Hamstring muscle injuries in professional football: the correlation of MRI findings with return to play. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:112–7.
Woods C, Hawkins R, Maltby S, Hulse M, Thomas A, Hodson A. The Football Association Medical Research Programme: an audit of injuries in professional football—analysis of hamstring injuries. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38:36–41.
Ekstrand J, Hägglund M, Waldén M. Epidemiology of muscle injuries in professional football (soccer). Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:1226–32.
Timmins RG, Bourne MN, Shield AJ, Williams MD, Lorenzen C, Opar DA. Short biceps femoris fascicles and eccentric knee flexor weakness increase the risk of hamstring injury in elite football (soccer): a prospective cohort study. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:1524–35.
Stares J, Dawson B, Peeling P, Drew M, Heasman J, Rogalski B, Colby M. How much is enough in rehabilitation? High running workloads following lower limb muscle injury delay return to play but protect against subsequent injury. J Sci Med Sport. 2018;21:1019–24.
Toohey LA, Drew MK, Cook JL, Finch CF, Gaida JE. Is subsequent lower limb injury associated with previous injury? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(23):1670–8.
Orchard J, Best TM. The management of muscle strain injuries: an early return versus the risk of recurrence. Clin J Sport Med. 2002;12:3–5.
Thorborg K. Why hamstring eccentrics are hamstring essentials. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46:463–5.
Ardern CL, Glasgow P, Schneiders A, Witvrouw E, Clarsen B, Cools A, Gojanovic B, Griffin S, Khan KM, Moksnes H. 2016 consensus statement on return to sport from the first world congress in sports physical therapy, Bern. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:853–64.
van der Horst N, Backx F, Goedhart EA, Huisstede BM. Return to play after hamstring injuries in football (soccer): a worldwide Delphi procedure regarding definition, medical criteria and decision-making. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(22):1583–91.
Zambaldi M, Beasley I, Rushton A. Return to play criteria after hamstring muscle injury in professional football: a Delphi consensus study. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:1221–6.
Shrier I. Strategic Assessment of Risk and Risk Tolerance (StARRT) framework for return-to-play decision-making. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(20):1311–5.
Bowen L, Gross AS, Gimpel M, Li FX. Accumulated workloads and the acute:chronic workload ratio relate to injury risk in elite youth football players. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:452–9.
Drew MK, Finch CF. The relationship between training load and injury, illness and soreness: a systematic and literature review. Sports Med. 2016;46:861–83.
Gabbett TJ, Jenkins DG. Relationship between training load and injury in professional rugby league players. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14:204–9.
Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Blanch P, Chapman P, Bailey D, Orchard JW. Spikes in acute workload are associated with increased injury risk in elite cricket fast bowlers. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48:708–12.
Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Lawson DW, Caputi P, Sampson JA. The acute: chronic workload ratio predicts injury: high chronic workload may decrease injury risk in elite rugby league players. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:231–6.
Malone S, Owen A, Newton M, Mendes B, Collins KD, Gabbett TJ. The acute: chronic workload ratio in relation to injury risk in professional soccer. J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20:561–5.
Ruddy JD, Pollard CW, Timmins RG, Williams MD, Shield AJ, Opar DA. Running exposure is associated with the risk of hamstring strain injury in elite Australian footballers. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:919–28.
Creighton DW, Shrier I, Shultz R, Meeuwisse WH, Matheson GO. Return-to-play in sport: a decision-based model. Clin J Sport Med. 2010;20:379–85.
Ardern CL, Taylor NF, Feller JA, Webster KE. A systematic review of the psychological factors associated with returning to sport following injury. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47:1120–6.
Podlog L, Dimmock J, Miller J. A review of return to sport concerns following injury rehabilitation: practitioner strategies for enhancing recovery outcomes. Phys Ther Sport. 2011;12:36–42.
Timpka T, Jacobsson J, Dahlström Ö, Kowalski J, Bargoria V, Ekberg J, Nilsson S, Renström P. The psychological factor ‘self-blame’ predicts overuse injury among top-level Swedish track and field athletes: a 12-month cohort study. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:1472–7.
Glazer DD. Development and preliminary validation of the injury-psychological readiness to return to sport (I-PRRS) scale. J Athl Train. 2009;44:185–9.
Forsdyke D, Gledhill A, Ardern C. Psychological readiness to return to sport: three key elements to help the practitioner decide whether the athlete is REALLY ready? Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:555–6.
Lee M, Reid SL, Elliott BC, Lloyd DG. Running biomechanics and lower limb strength associated with prior hamstring injury. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:1942–51.
Mendiguchia J, Samozino P, Martinez-Ruiz E, Brughelli M, Schmikli S, Morin J-B, Mendez-Villanueva A. Progression of mechanical properties during on-field sprint running after returning to sports from a hamstring muscle injury in soccer players. Int J Sports Med. 2014;35:690–5.
Morin J-B, Bourdin M, Edouard P, Peyrot N, Samozino P, Lacour J-R. Mechanical determinants of 100-m sprint running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012;112:3921–30.
Bourdon PC, Cardinale M, Murray A, Gastin P, Kellmann M, Varley MC, Gabbett TJ, Coutts AJ, Burgess DJ, Gregson W, Cable NT. Monitoring athlete training loads: consensus statement. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12:S2161–70.
Duhig S, Shield AJ, Opar D, Gabbett TJ, Ferguson C, Williams M. Effect of high-speed running on hamstring strain injury risk. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:1536–40.
De Vos R-J, Reurink G, Goudswaard G-J, Moen MH, Weir A, Tol JL. Clinical findings just after return to play predict hamstring re-injury, but baseline MRI findings do not. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(18):1377–84.
Bengtsson H, Ekstrand J, Waldén M, Hägglund M. Few training sessions between return to play and first match appearance are associated with an increased propensity for injury: a prospective cohort study of male professional football players during 16 consecutive seasons. Br J Sports Med:bjsports-2019-100655.
McCall A, Dupont G, Ekstrand J. Internal workload and non-contact injury: a one-season study of five teams from the UEFA Elite Club Injury Study. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(23):1517–22.
Gabbett TJ. The training-injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and harder? Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:273–80.
Murray NB, Gabbett TJ, Townshend AD, Blanch P. Calculating acute:chronic workload ratios using exponentially weighted moving averages provides a more sensitive indicator of injury likelihood than rolling averages. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51:749–54.
Blanch P, Gabbett TJ. Has the athlete trained enough to return to play safely? The acute:chronic workload ratio permits clinicians to quantify a player’s risk of subsequent injury. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50:471–5.
Rogalski B, Dawson B, Heasman J, Gabbett TJ. Training and game loads and injury risk in elite Australian footballers. J Sci Med Sport. 2013;16:499–503.
Lolli L, Batterham AM, Hawkins R, Kelly DM, Strudwick AJ, Thorpe R, Gregson W, Atkinson G. Mathematical coupling causes spurious correlation within the conventional acute-to-chronic workload ratio calculations. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53:921–2.
Charlton PC, Raysmith B, Wollin M, Rice S, Purdam C, Clark RA, Drew MK. Knee flexion not hip extension strength is persistently reduced following hamstring strain injury in Australian football athletes: implications for periodic health examinations. J Sci Med Sport. 2018a;21(10):999–1003.
Lord C, Ma’ayah F, Blazevich AJ. Change in knee flexor torque after fatiguing exercise identifies previous hamstring injury in football players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2018;28:1235–43.
Opar DA, Williams MD, Timmins RG, Hickey J, Duhig SJ, Shield AJ. The effect of previous hamstring strain injuries on the change in eccentric hamstring strength during preseason training in elite Australian footballers. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:377–84.
Freckleton G, Pizzari T. Risk factors for hamstring muscle strain injury in sport: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47:351–8.
Van Beijsterveldt AM, Van De Port IG, Vereijken AJ, Backx FJ. Risk factors for hamstring injuries in male soccer players: a systematic review of prospective studies. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013;23:253–62.
Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Fletcher GS. Clinical epidemiology: the essentials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
Charlton PC, Raysmith B, Wollin M, Rice S, Purdam C, Clark RA, Drew MK. Knee flexion strength is significantly reduced following competition in semi-professional Australian Rules football athletes: implications for injury prevention programs. Phys Ther Sport. 2018b;31:9–14.
Maniar N, Shield AJ, Williams MD, Timmins RG, Opar DA. Hamstring strength and flexibility after hamstring strain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(15):909–20.
Wollin M, Thorborg K, Pizzari T. The acute effect of match play on hamstring strength and lower limb flexibility in elite youth football players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017;27:282–8.
Wollin M, Thorborg K, Pizzari T. Monitoring the effect of football match congestion on hamstring strength and lower limb flexibility: potential for secondary injury prevention? Phys Ther Sport. 2018;29:14–8.
Silva JR, Rumpf MC, Hertzog M, Castagna C, Farooq A, Girard O, Hader K. Acute and residual soccer match-related fatigue: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018;48:539–83.
Wollin M, Thorborg K, Drew M, Pizzari T. A novel hamstring strain injury prevention system: post-match strength testing for secondary prevention in football. Br J Sports Med. 2019. https://doi.org/101136/bjsports-2019-100707.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wollin, M., Pollock, N., Thorborg, K. (2020). Return to Sport After Hamstring Injuries. In: Thorborg, K., Opar, D., Shield, A. (eds) Prevention and Rehabilitation of Hamstring Injuries. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31638-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31638-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31637-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31638-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)