Return to sport after conservative versus surgical treatment for pubalgia in athletes: a systematic review

Abstract Background To assess the time required to return to sport (RTS) after conservative versus surgical treatment in athletes for pubalgia. Methods The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Pubmed, SportDiscus and Web of Science were last accessed on September 2022. All the studies investigating the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research Vol. 17; no. 1; pp. 1 - 484
Main Authors Serafim, Thiago Teixeira, Oliveira, Eliton Stanley, Migliorini, Filippo, Maffulli, Nicola, Okubo, Rodrigo
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London BioMed Central Ltd 11.11.2022
BioMed Central
BMC
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Abstract Background To assess the time required to return to sport (RTS) after conservative versus surgical treatment in athletes for pubalgia. Methods The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Pubmed, SportDiscus and Web of Science were last accessed on September 2022. All the studies investigating the time to RTS after conservative versus surgical treatment in athletes for pubalgia. Results In total, 33 studies were selected for full text assessment, and 10 studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Seven studies reported data on conservative management, two on surgical management and one compared both. A total of 468 subjects were included for analysis. 58.7% (275 of 468) were soccer players, 5.9% (28 of 468) runners, and 3.8% (18 of 468) hockey players. Two studies did not specify the type of sport. The quality of the studies detailing the results of conservative management was higher than surgical procedures. Conclusion This review highlights that individuals undergoing surgery for pubalgia may return to sport earlier than those receiving conservative treatment. However, conservative management should be considered before surgical treatment is indicated.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Review-1
ObjectType-Undefined-4
ISSN:1749-799X
1749-799X
DOI:10.1186/s13018-022-03376-y