【摘要】：目的比較解剖單束重建和傳統(tǒng)單束重建前交叉韌帶的臨床效果,為臨床手術(shù)方式的選擇提供理論依據(jù)與參考。方法自2010年7月至2012年4月,共有246例患者在我院進行了ACL重建手術(shù),其中,自2010年7月至2011年6月,共進行了127例傳統(tǒng)的單束前交叉韌帶重建手術(shù),之后我們均采用解剖單束重建的手術(shù)方式,共進行了119例。最終,共83例患者入選了本研究,其中傳統(tǒng)重建組46例,解剖重建組37例。傳統(tǒng)重建組中,男性33例,女性13例,平均年齡29.5歲(19-44歲);解剖重建組中,男性26例,女性11例,平均年齡31.9歲(20-42歲)。比較兩組手術(shù)技術(shù)術(shù)后膝關(guān)節(jié)主觀功能評分(IKDC分級和Lysholm評分)、穩(wěn)定性評估(Lachman試驗、軸移試驗和KT1000測量)結(jié)果。結(jié)果在術(shù)后隨訪時,兩組患者在KT1000側(cè)側(cè)差值、Lachman試驗結(jié)果、軸移試驗結(jié)果、Lysholm評分和IKDC分級方面均沒有顯著性差異。兩組均無術(shù)后感染、膝關(guān)節(jié)僵硬、移植物失效等并發(fā)癥。解剖單束重建組軸移試驗的結(jié)果雖然與傳統(tǒng)單束重建組無顯著性差異,但總體上來看有優(yōu)于傳統(tǒng)單束重建組的趨勢(P=0.064)。結(jié)論兩組患者在年齡、性別、受傷側(cè)別和受傷至手術(shù)時間上無顯著性差異;兩組患者術(shù)前主觀和客觀評估結(jié)果也無顯著差異。解剖單束重建與傳統(tǒng)單束重建相比,在臨床評分和前后向穩(wěn)定性上均無明顯優(yōu)勢,但解剖單束重建可以更好地控制膝關(guān)節(jié)的旋轉(zhuǎn)穩(wěn)定性。
[Abstract]:Objective to compare the clinical effects of anatomical single bundle reconstruction and traditional single bundle reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) so as to provide theoretical basis and reference for the choice of clinical operation methods. Methods from July 2010 to April 2012, a total of 246 patients underwent ACL reconstruction in our hospital. From July 2010 to June 2011, 127 patients underwent traditional single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. After that, 119 cases were performed with anatomical single bundle reconstruction. Finally, a total of 83 patients were included in this study, including 46 cases of traditional reconstruction group and 37 cases of anatomic reconstruction group. There were 33 males and 13 females in the traditional reconstruction group with an average age of 29.5 years (19-44 years) and 26 males and 11 females with an average age of 31.9 years (20-42 years) in the anatomical reconstruction group. The results of subjective function score (IKDC) and Lysholm score, stability evaluation (Lachman test, axial shift test and KT1000 measurement) were compared between the two groups. Results there was no significant difference in Lachman test, Lysholm score and IKDC grade between the two groups in KT1000 side difference, axial shift test and IKDC classification. There were no postoperative infection, knee stiffness, graft failure and other complications in both groups. Although there was no significant difference between the single bundle reconstruction group and the traditional one bundle reconstruction group, the result of axial shift test in the anatomical single bundle reconstruction group was better than that in the traditional one bundle reconstruction group (P0. 064). Conclusion there was no significant difference between the two groups in age, sex, injury side and time from injury to operation, and there was no significant difference between the two groups in preoperative subjective and objective evaluation results. Compared with traditional single-bundle reconstruction, anatomical single-bundle reconstruction has no obvious advantages in clinical score and anteroposterior stability, but anatomical single-bundle reconstruction can better control the rotation stability of knee joint.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：青島大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：R687.4

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 孫磊;寧志杰;田敏;寧廷民;張紅;羅毅;馬清元;高加智;劉欣欣;;關(guān)節(jié)鏡下膝前交叉韌帶與后交叉韌帶聯(lián)合重建[J];中國矯形外科雜志;2006年08期

，

本文編號：2131513