Hamstring and muscle injury: rehabilitation and return to play
Hamstring and other muscle injuries are among the most common and most stubbornly recurrent problems in sport, and the field has spent a decade trying to agree on how to describe them before arguing about how to treat them. This guide starts where there is broad agreement: the Munich consensus on terminology, the British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification that puts MRI findings into a grading system, and the Bern framework for what return to sport actually means. It then layers on the studies we have appraised, from prevention programmes to rehabilitation protocols to surgical repair of proximal avulsions, so you can see where new evidence supports or complicates the consensus. Along the way it defines the key terms and answers the questions clinicians ask most. The honest message throughout is that classification is more settled than treatment, and that return to play remains a criteria-based judgement rather than a date on a calendar.
Updated as new evidence lands · last reviewed at Issue 9
Foundations: consensus & guidelines
The international consensus statements this topic is built on. Start here, then read the appraised studies below against them.
ACL-specific consensus defining return to sport as a criteria-based continuum rather than a time point, and setting out testing and shared decision-making for clearance after ACL injury.
- Return to sport is a criteria-based continuum, return to participation, then return to sport, then return to performance, not a single date.
- Clearance should rest on objective testing (strength, hop, movement quality, psychological readiness), not time since surgery alone.
- The decision is shared between clinician and athlete, accounting for the sport's demands and the athlete's risk tolerance.
Our appraisal: Consensus via modified Delphi, so it sets the decision framework rather than validating any single test battery or cut-off. It is most useful as a reminder that a passed clock is not a passed knee; the specific thresholds still lack strong prospective validation.
Read the statement ↗Defines and operationalises 'return to sport' as a continuum (return to participation, return to sport, return to performance), with a shared decision-making framework (StARRT).
- Operationalises return to sport as a three-stage continuum applicable across injuries, not just ACL.
- Introduces the StARRT framework (Strategic Assessment of Risk and Risk Tolerance) for the return decision.
- Frames clearance as shared decision-making under uncertainty rather than a purely biological milestone.
Our appraisal: A foundational framework paper rather than an evidence synthesis. Its strength is a shared language for the return-to-sport decision: it tells you how to structure the decision, not what the pass criteria are, so pair it with injury-specific testing evidence.
Read the statement ↗MRI-based grading of muscle injury (0, 4, a/b/c) to guide prognosis and return to play.
- Grades muscle injury on MRI from 0 to 4 by extent of injury, with a site letter marking myofascial, muscle-tendon junction or intratendinous involvement.
- Designed to sharpen prognosis and inform return-to-play decisions beyond a simple strain label.
- Flags injuries involving the tendon (the 'c' subgroup) as tending towards longer recovery and higher re-injury risk.
Our appraisal: An expert-derived classification whose prognostic signals, especially around intratendinous injury, are supported by subsequent cohorts but not definitively validated, so it usefully structures expectations while return-to-play timelines remain individual rather than fixed by grade.
Read the statement ↗Consensus terminology and classification of muscle injuries in sport.
- Proposes standardised terminology for muscle injuries and distinguishes functional muscle disorders from structural muscle injuries.
- Sets out a classification running from overexertion-related and neuromuscular functional disorders through partial and complete structural tears and avulsions.
- Aims to improve diagnosis, prognosis and communication between clinicians rather than to prescribe treatment.
Our appraisal: Structured expert consensus, not a prospectively validated system, so it earns its place as a shared vocabulary rather than as proof of prognosis; the functional-disorder categories in particular have limited demonstrated inter-rater reliability, so use it to communicate clearly, not to promise timelines.
Read the statement ↗The evidence, appraised
Individual studies we have appraised, read against the consensus above, newest first.
Key terms in this topic
Frequently asked
What is the difference between the Munich classification and BAMIC?
They answer different questions. The Munich consensus is a terminology system that separates functional muscle disorders from structural injuries and gives everyone a shared vocabulary. The British Athletics Muscle Injury Classification is an MRI-based grading system that scores the extent of injury from 0 to 4 and adds a site letter for where the damage sits, including whether the tendon itself is involved. In practice clinicians use consistent terminology to communicate and imaging grades to help estimate prognosis.
Does an MRI grade tell me when an athlete can return to play?
Not on its own. A higher grade, and in particular intratendinous involvement, tends to signal a longer recovery, and that association is what makes the classification useful for setting expectations. But time to return is individual and should rest on progression through rehabilitation and criteria-based testing rather than being read straight off a scan. Treat the grade as one input to the conversation, not the answer.
Are eccentric and Nordic-type exercises worth doing for prevention?
Eccentric-biased programmes feature prominently in hamstring prevention, and network meta-analyses tend to rank them and structured warm-ups favourably. The certainty of that evidence is low, no programme has clearly beaten the others head-to-head, and adherence in the real world is often the limiting factor. They are reasonable to use, but sell them as sensible risk reduction rather than a guarantee.
When is surgery considered for a hamstring injury?
Rarely. The main indication is a complete proximal hamstring avulsion, where surgical repair can restore function. Even then, our appraisal of a repair case series is a useful reality check: most patients returned to sport, but only a minority returned to their previous level and lasting numbness was not uncommon. The great majority of hamstring strains are managed without an operation.
How should return to sport be decided after a hamstring injury?
Follow the logic of the Bern consensus: return to sport is a continuum of participation, then sport, then performance, decided against objective criteria and shared with the athlete. Being pain-free is necessary but not sufficient. A scoping review we appraised found hamstring rehabilitation research leans heavily on pain-based return calls with poorly reported protocols, which is exactly why a criteria-based, individualised approach is safer than a fixed timeline.
The five papers that matter, every week, free.
We read the whole sports-medicine, rehab & performance literature and appraise the papers worth your time.
Get the free weekly issue