📚Upside Analysis: The Rise of Soft-Tissue Imaging in Elite Sports: Key Trends, Vendors, Studies, Recommendations to teams.

Introduction

Elite sports organizations have traditionally used medical imaging after an athlete reports pain or suffers an acute injury. That model is beginning to change.

More teams are exploring imaging of the Achilles tendon, patellar tendon, hamstrings and other soft tissues throughout the season—not only to diagnose injuries, but also to establish baselines, monitor rehabilitation and better understand how tissues respond to training load.

There is no comprehensive public database showing exactly how many teams have adopted routine soft-tissue imaging. Nevertheless, portable ultrasound, quantitative imaging and faster analysis are making repeated assessments more practical.

The opportunity is significant, but so is the risk of overinterpretation. An abnormal scan does not automatically mean that an athlete is injured, and a normal-looking scan does not guarantee that an injury will not occur.

The objective should not be to scan every athlete and search for abnormalities. It should be to answer a clearly defined clinical or performance question.

Why Imaging Tendons, Achilles and Hamstrings Matters

Soft-tissue injuries are among the most consequential problems in elite sports. Hamstring injuries can lead to substantial time loss and have a meaningful recurrence risk. Achilles tendinopathy can develop gradually, affect performance for months and, in severe cases, progress to rupture.

Imaging can help teams:

• Confirm the location and extent of an acute injury.

• Differentiate muscular, myotendinous and intratendinous injuries.

• Identify partial or complete tendon ruptures.

• Establish an athlete-specific baseline.

• Monitor tissue structure during rehabilitation.

• Compare the injured and uninjured sides.

• Evaluate how tissues are responding to changes in load.

• Support return-to-training and return-to-performance discussions.

• Identify cases that require specialist referral or additional investigation.

• Improve communication among physicians, physical therapists, athletic trainers, strength coaches and athletes.

For hamstring injuries, the location can be highly relevant. An injury involving the intramuscular tendon may behave differently from a less complex muscle injury. For the Achilles, imaging can reveal tendon thickening, changes in fiber organization, neovascularity and mechanical properties.

However, structural findings must always be interpreted alongside symptoms, clinical examination, strength, function, workload and the athlete’s history.

The Main Imaging Modalities

1. Conventional musculoskeletal ultrasound

B-mode ultrasound uses high-frequency sound waves to visualize muscles, tendons and other superficial structures in real time.

It can assess:

• Tendon thickness and continuity.

• Fiber organization.

• Muscle tears and hematomas.

• Myotendinous injuries.

• Scar tissue.

• Dynamic movement.

• Side-to-side differences.

Ultrasound is portable, relatively affordable and repeatable. It can also be used at the training facility, during travel or close to the field.

Its main limitation is that it is highly operator-dependent. Probe placement, pressure, angle, athlete position and machine settings can all influence the result. Deep structures and complex proximal hamstring injuries may also be more difficult to visualize than with MRI.

2. Color and power Doppler ultrasound

Doppler techniques assess blood flow within and around soft tissues. In tendinopathy, practitioners may use Doppler to evaluate neovascularity or changes in local vascularity.

Doppler can add useful information to a structural ultrasound examination, but increased blood flow should not automatically be interpreted as proof of pain, injury severity or readiness.

3. Shear-wave and strain elastography

Elastography attempts to quantify tissue mechanical properties, particularly stiffness.

This is attractive in sports because tendons and muscles adapt mechanically to loading, injury and rehabilitation. In theory, teams could monitor whether an Achilles tendon or hamstring is becoming stiffer, softer or more heterogeneous over time.

The technology remains sensitive to:

• Joint and muscle position.

• Recent activity and loading.

• Probe pressure and orientation.

• The size and position of the selected region.

• Device and software differences.

• Operator experience.

A systematic review of Achilles tendon elastography found encouraging evidence for some measures but substantial methodological variation. It concluded that no elastography method had yet demonstrated clear superiority for routine clinical use. Read the systematic review here.

4. Ultrasound Tissue Characterization

Ultrasound Tissue Characterization, or UTC, uses standardized ultrasound acquisition and software analysis to construct a three-dimensional representation of a tendon.

The system evaluates the stability of echo patterns across consecutive images and categorizes tendon structure into different echo types. This can provide a more quantitative assessment of tendon organization than a single conventional ultrasound image.

UTC is especially relevant to Achilles and patellar tendon monitoring. Its potential value lies in evaluating changes over time under a standardized protocol rather than relying on one isolated image.

As with other imaging modalities, changes in UTC findings should not be treated as a direct prediction that an injury will occur. Learn more about the technology.

5. Magnetic resonance imaging

MRI provides highly detailed visualization of muscles, tendons, fascia, bone marrow and surrounding tissues without ionizing radiation.

For hamstring injuries, MRI can help determine:

• Which muscles are involved.

• The location and length of the injury.

• Whether the myotendinous or intramuscular tendon is involved.

• The presence of edema, hemorrhage or retraction.

• Whether an avulsion or complete rupture has occurred.

MRI is particularly valuable for deep or complex injuries and when surgical decisions may be involved.

Its disadvantages include cost, limited portability, access and the time required to perform and interpret the examination. MRI abnormalities can also persist after symptoms and function have improved, making the scan an imperfect standalone return-to-play tool.

6. Advanced quantitative MRI

Emerging MRI techniques include:

• T2 and T2* mapping.

• Ultrashort echo-time imaging.

• Diffusion-tensor imaging.

• Quantitative fat and water mapping.

• MR elastography.

• Radiomics and automated tissue segmentation.

These methods may eventually quantify tissue quality and healing more precisely than conventional visual grading. Most remain more common in research or specialist environments than in daily team operations.

7. Infrared thermography

Thermography measures patterns of skin-surface temperature. It may help identify thermal asymmetries or physiological responses associated with inflammation, altered circulation or workload.

However, thermography does not directly image the internal structure of a tendon or muscle. Environmental temperature, recent exercise, clothing, hydration and the measurement protocol can all affect results.

It should therefore be considered a complementary screening or monitoring signal—not a replacement for ultrasound, MRI or clinical assessment.

Key Vendors

The vendor landscape includes major medical-imaging companies, portable ultrasound providers and specialized tendon-imaging platforms.

Conventional and advanced ultrasound

Major providers include:

• GE HealthCare, which offers LOGIQ, Venue and handheld Vscan platforms.

• Philips, with musculoskeletal ultrasound, Doppler, panoramic imaging and elastography capabilities.

• Siemens Healthineers.

• Canon Medical Systems.

• Esaote, which has a strong musculoskeletal imaging focus.

• Samsung Medison.

• Fujifilm SonoSite.

The availability of individual elastography, Doppler and quantitative tools varies by system, model and country.

Portable and handheld ultrasound

Portable platforms are helping move imaging from radiology departments into team facilities and point-of-care environments.

Relevant vendors include:

• Clarius, which offers wireless handheld probes for musculoskeletal applications.

• Butterfly Network, which provides a handheld whole-body ultrasound platform.

• GE HealthCare through its Vscan products.

• Fujifilm SonoSite through its portable systems.

Portability does not eliminate the need for training. Image acquisition and interpretation should remain in the hands of appropriately qualified practitioners operating within local regulations.

Specialized tendon imaging

UTC Imaging is a specialized provider of Ultrasound Tissue Characterization. Its technology combines a motorized tracker, ultrasound acquisition and software designed to quantify tendon structure longitudinally.

MRI systems

Key MRI providers include:

• Siemens Healthineers

• GE HealthCare

• Philips

• Canon Medical Systems

• United Imaging

• Esaote

These companies provide the scanners and imaging ecosystems used by hospitals, sports-medicine centers and some professional organizations. Teams frequently access MRI through an affiliated hospital or imaging partner rather than owning a scanner.

This list is illustrative rather than a product endorsement.

What the Research Shows

Achilles abnormalities may precede symptoms—but prediction remains difficult

A prospective study evaluated pre-race ultrasound abnormalities in runners and their association with subsequent Achilles injuries. The research supports the possibility that structural abnormalities can identify elevated risk, but it also illustrates why imaging cannot perfectly determine which individual athlete will develop symptoms. Read the study.

A systematic review and meta-analysis found that tendon abnormalities detected by ultrasound were associated with a greater risk of developing Achilles or patellar tendon symptoms. However, many athletes with abnormalities remained asymptomatic. Read the review.

This is one of the most important lessons for teams: risk association is not individual injury prediction.

Abnormalities can persist without symptoms

A 2026 two-year ultrasound study of collegiate athletes examined the persistence of abnormalities in the patellar tendon, Achilles tendon and plantar fascia. Its findings reinforce that sonographic abnormalities and clinical symptoms do not always move together. Read the study.

A structurally abnormal tendon may remain pain-free and functional. Conversely, an athlete can experience significant pain without dramatic structural changes on imaging.

MRI provides useful hamstring information—but cannot determine return to play alone

A prospective analysis of 255 hamstring injuries from the UEFA Elite Club Injury Study examined the relationship between MRI findings and return to play. MRI-negative injuries were generally associated with shorter absences, while certain locations and injury characteristics were associated with longer recovery. Read the study.

A systematic review examining MRI and hamstring reinjury risk concluded that MRI findings alone have limited value for predicting reinjury. Read the systematic review.

Another systematic review found that greater muscle or tendon involvement, longer lesions, injuries involving multiple muscles and certain central-tendon or myotendinous injuries were associated with delayed return to play. Clinical findings and rehabilitation progress remained essential. Read the review.

Research involving elite football and track-and-field athletes has also found that intratendinous hamstring injuries can be associated with longer rehabilitation or a greater recurrence risk. Elite football study and elite track-and-field study.

Future Trends

Imaging will become more portable

Handheld ultrasound will make assessments more accessible at training facilities, during preseason testing and while teams travel. The practical advantage will be the ability to examine an athlete quickly and repeat the examination over time.

Teams will develop athlete-specific baselines

Population norms are often inadequate for elite athletes. Future programs will compare each athlete with their own previous scans, symptoms, strength data and workload history.

This could be especially valuable for athletes with a history of Achilles tendinopathy, recurrent hamstring injuries or previous tendon surgery.

Imaging will become more quantitative

Instead of relying primarily on visual interpretation, future platforms will quantify:

• Tendon thickness and cross-sectional area.

• Fiber organization.

• Tissue stiffness.

• Vascularity.

• Muscle architecture.

• Fascicle length.

• Scar-tissue characteristics.

• Changes between scans.

AI will automate acquisition and analysis

AI could help practitioners position the probe, identify anatomical landmarks, segment tissue and detect changes from an athlete’s baseline.

The most valuable systems will not simply label a scan as red, yellow or green. They will show practitioners what changed, quantify the confidence in that finding and preserve clinical oversight.

Imaging will be integrated with other data

Imaging will increasingly be combined with:

• GPS and external workload.

• Strength and force-plate testing.

• Isokinetic assessments.

• Sprint exposure.

• Pain and wellness reports.

• Previous injury history.

• Blood or molecular biomarkers.

• Training and competition schedules.

The goal will be to understand tissue response in context, rather than viewing the scan as an isolated answer.

Dynamic and loaded imaging will grow

Most imaging is performed while the athlete is resting. Future assessments will increasingly evaluate muscles and tendons during contraction, loading or movement.

This could help teams better understand how tissues behave under conditions that are closer to sport.

Recommendations for Teams

Teams considering a soft-tissue imaging program should:

1. Begin with a specific question. Decide whether imaging will support diagnosis, rehabilitation monitoring, baseline development or research.

2. Use qualified practitioners. Acquisition and interpretation should be performed by appropriately trained medical professionals.

3. Standardize the protocol. Control athlete position, joint angle, probe location, device settings, operator, time of day and recent loading.

4. Establish individual baselines. A player’s own longitudinal data may be more meaningful than a single comparison with population norms.

5. Measure reliability first. Teams should determine the normal measurement variation before treating a small change as meaningful.

6. Avoid scanning without a decision pathway. Before collecting data, determine what action could follow each potential finding.

7. Never use imaging in isolation. Combine results with pain, function, strength, range of motion, workload and clinical examination.

8. Do not medicalize every abnormality. Structural variation is common in high-performing and asymptomatic athletes.

9. Avoid promising injury prediction. Imaging may identify risk-related characteristics, but it cannot reliably determine exactly who will be injured.

10. Validate AI-generated outputs. Automated measurements should be checked against expert interpretation and independent research.

11. Maintain consistent hardware and software records. Algorithm or system updates can affect longitudinal comparisons.

12. Protect medical data. Imaging results should be governed as sensitive health information with clear rules around access, retention and use in selection or contract decisions.

Conclusion

Soft-tissue imaging is moving from an episodic diagnostic service toward a more continuous role in athlete management.

Ultrasound, Doppler, elastography, UTC and advanced MRI can give teams new insight into the Achilles tendon, hamstrings and other vulnerable tissues. Portable systems and AI will make these assessments faster, more quantitative and easier to repeat. But more imaging does not automatically mean better decisions.

The central challenge is interpretation. Teams must distinguish normal adaptation from pathology, structural abnormality from symptoms and elevated risk from certain injury prediction.

The organizations that benefit most will be those that use imaging to answer focused questions and combine it with clinical expertise, functional testing and workload data.

The objective should not be to generate more scans. It should be to understand how an athlete’s tissues are responding—and determine whether that information can lead to a meaningful intervention.

You may also like: