Abstract
Abstract
Proximal hamstring tendon avulsions are being treated surgically at rising rates, and although primary repair reliably restores function and return to sport in the acute setting, chronic and significantly retracted tears present a far more difficult problem. When direct repair is not feasible for a chronic, retracted proximal hamstring tendon avulsion, allograft reconstruction offers a bridge across a gap that would otherwise go unaddressed. However, significant chronicity and retraction are difficult challenges to overcome, and patient expectations must be appropriately counseled. As a salvage procedure, allograft reconstruction may improve patient outcomes significantly; however, it is not expected to restore full function, return athletic individuals to their baseline and preinjury level of sports participation, or match the success of primary repair. Allograft reconstruction may also carry more than double the risk of rerupture, which is important to discuss with patients up front. Graft choice and postoperative rehabilitation protocols remain heterogeneous across the limited available literature, and a validated tool to risk‐stratify which chronic, retracted tears are best served by reconstruction versus continued nonoperative management does not yet exist. These findings suggest that allograft reconstruction is a viable and clinically meaningful option for a difficult, often nonoperatively unsalvageable problem, but surgeons should frame it for patients as a salvage procedure rather than a full restoration of function, and expectations should be set accordingly.