摘要
目的通过对比分析关节镜下缝合修补术和半月板次全／全切除术治疗半月板桶柄样撕裂的临床疗效，探讨缝合修补治疗半月板桶柄样撕裂的应用价值。方法回顾性分析2005年1月至2009年1月经关节镜治疗的34例（34膝）半月板桶柄样撕裂患者，其中采用全内缝合或全内和外内联合缝合的患者15例（A组），男9例，女6例；平均年龄为（30．3±6．8）岁；受伤至手术时间平均为（10．6±3．8）d；内侧半月板损伤12例，外侧半月板损伤3例。同期采用半月板次全／全切除术19例（B组），男11例，女8例；平均年龄为（29．1±5．5）岁，受伤至手术时间平均为（10．2±2．8）d；内侧半月板损伤15例，外侧半月板损伤4例。记录两组的手术时间，并通过患者的症状、体征、关节活动度和Lysholm评分等比较两组患者疗效。结果手术时间：A组为（71．3±8．8）min，B组为（45．7±9．4）min，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）：两组患者术后获12～24个月（平均17．2个月）随访。术后6个月关节活动度A组平均为138．70±5．1°，B组平均为136．00±4．6°；术后12个月关节活动度A组平均为140．1°±3．1°，B组平均为139．8°±3．3°，两组比较差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。术后6个月Lysholm评分A组平均为（90．1±7．1）分，B组平均为（89．9±6．9）分，差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；术后12个月Lvsholm评分A组平均为（94．5±3．9）分，B组平均为（90．3±5．8）分，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05），A组优于B组。结论对于大型半月板撕裂，采用合适的缝合技术町使撕裂的仝K段获得有效修补，能尽可能多地保留半月板的功能，临床疗效优于传统的半月板次全／全切除术.
Objective To compare the therapeutic effects between arthroscopic suture repair and arthroseopic sub-total or total meniseeetomy for bucket-handle meniscus tears. Methods Thirty-four patients （34 knees） with bucket-handle meniscus tear were treated in our hospital from January 2005 to January 2009. Fifteen patients （Group A） received arthroscopic meniscus suture repair （all-inside or all-inside combined with outside-in）. During the same period 19 patients （Group B） sustained total or subtotal menisceetomy. Groups A and B were compared in terms of symptoms, physical signs, range of motion （ROM） of the knee joint, and the Lysholm scores. There were no significant differences in ROM, Lyshohn scores, age and sex distribution before surgery. Results All patients in the 2 groups had been followed up for an arerage of 17.2 months （12 to 24 months） . Between groups A and B, there were no significant differences in ROM after surgery or in Lysholm scores 6 months after operation, but there were significant differences in Lysholm scores 12 months after surgery. Group A was superior to group B. Conclusions For large meniscal tears like bucket-handle ones, arthroscopic suture technique provides stable strength repair along the whole length of injured region and consequently achieves satisfactory clinical outcomes. It should be recommended as a conventional therapeutic method.
出处
《中华创伤骨科杂志》
CAS
CSCD
2010年第4期329-333,共5页
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
