本文關(guān)鍵詞： 肩袖撕裂 縫線橋 單排 磁共振　出處：《中國運(yùn)動醫(yī)學(xué)雜志》2017年02期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：目的:比較評估關(guān)節(jié)鏡下單排與縫線橋技術(shù)修復(fù)中型肩袖撕裂的臨床療效。方法:回顧性分析我科于2014年7月至2015年6月收治的55例中型肩袖撕裂患者,所有患者由同一醫(yī)生于關(guān)節(jié)鏡下以縫線錨釘單排(n=29)或縫線橋(n=26)技術(shù)修復(fù)撕裂肩袖。記錄并比較術(shù)前及末次隨訪時的肩關(guān)節(jié)功能評分:美國肩肘外科醫(yī)師協(xié)會評分(ASES評分)、美國加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校肩關(guān)節(jié)評分(UCLA評分)和復(fù)旦大學(xué)肩關(guān)節(jié)評分(FUSS評分),以及疼痛視覺量表評分(VAS評分)和肩關(guān)節(jié)活動度(前屈、外展、體側(cè)外旋)。末次隨訪時拍攝MRI以評估縫合肩袖的愈合情況。結(jié)果:50例患者獲得隨訪,其中縫線橋組24例,單排組26例。兩組間年齡、性別、隨訪時間、患側(cè)差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義。兩組患者間術(shù)前功能評分(ASES,UCLA,FUSS)、VAS評分以及肩關(guān)節(jié)活動度(前屈,外展,體側(cè)外旋)差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義。術(shù)后兩組患者各項指標(biāo)均得到明顯改善,但兩組間差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義。MRI檢查發(fā)現(xiàn)兩組均無患者出現(xiàn)再撕裂,縫線橋組sugayaⅠ型患者較單排組比例更高(83.3%vs 61.5%),但差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義。結(jié)論:關(guān)節(jié)鏡下縫線橋技術(shù)治療中型肩袖撕裂早期結(jié)果優(yōu)良,安全有效,但相比傳統(tǒng)單排技術(shù),未顯示出明顯優(yōu)勢,MRI結(jié)果雖提示肩袖愈合情況可能更優(yōu),遠(yuǎn)期療效仍有待深入研究。
[Abstract]:Objective: to compare and evaluate the clinical effect of arthroscopic single-row and suture bridge in the repair of mid-sized rotator cuff tears. Methods: 55 patients with moderate rotator cuff tears treated in our department from July 2014 to June 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent arthroscopic repair of torn rotator cuff with single row of suture anchors or suture bridge. Shoulder joint function scores were recorded and compared before and after the last follow-up: American Association of shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. ASES score, UCLA score of UCLA at UCLA, FUSS score of Fudan University, and visual scale of pain (VAS) and range of shoulder motion (anterior flexion). MRI was taken at the last follow-up to evaluate the healing of sutured rotator cuff. Results 50 patients were followed up, including 24 cases in suture bridge group and 26 cases in single row group. There was no significant difference in the affected side between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the preoperative functional score and the VAS score and the range of shoulder motion (flexion, abduction, lateral rotation) between the two groups. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups. The proportion of sugaya 鈪，

本文編號：1550088