前交叉韧带重建Tightrope与Endobutton临床应用效果比较

发布时间：2018-05-28 22:25

本文选题：前交叉韧带 + 韧带重建　；参考：《安徽医科大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的:对60例前交叉韧带断裂患者按照随机分组的原则,分两个组分别施行Tightrope与Endobutton方式进行前交叉韧带重建术,分析比较术前、术中、术后相关参数,分析Tightrope与Endobutton两种固定方式在前交叉韧带重建术中、术后应用效果的差异。方法:从2014年7月到2015年8月,在安徽医科大学第一附属医院运动创伤与关节镜外科,对60例前交叉韧带断裂患者进行节镜下前交叉韧带取腱重建术,按照随机分组的原则,分成两组,每组各30例患者。一组术中前交叉韧带重建使用Endobutton内固定,另外30例术中使用Tightrope进行固定。两组均由同一位术者和同一个医疗小组成员完成。术后按照正规的程序功能锻炼,定期门诊随访。运用SPSS16.0软件进行统计学分析,计量资料采用均数t检验。手术前比较基线资料(如人均年龄,前抽屉试验阳性例数等),术中比较两组相应数据(如取腱处切口长度、股骨端骨道骨量丢失量等)。术后3、6个月分别比较膝关节关节功能(如Lysholm和Tegner评分等),以及两组不良反应发生率。从而用来比较两种手术固定方式在前交叉韧带取腱重建术中临床疗效差异。结果:1,两组病例在术前基线资料比较中,采用均数t检验,P值均大于0.05,统计学上无差异性,具可比较性。2,两组在术中相应数据(取腱处切口长度、股骨端骨道骨量丢失量等)比较,采用均数t检验,P值均0.05,具统计学差异性。术中相应数据(取腱处切口长度、股骨端骨道骨量丢失量等)Tightrope组统计学上明显优于Endobutton组。3,两组术后3、6个月分别比较膝关节相关功能参数(如Lysholm和Tegner评分等),采用均数t检验,P值均0.05,统计学上两组无明显差异性。两种手术方法临床疗效相当,无明显差异性。总结:两组相关数据比较发现术中Tightrope组较Endobutton组术中可缩短手术时间,减少取腱处切口长度,能够减少股骨端骨隧道内骨量的丢失。两组术后3、6个月随访过程中临床疗效相似,无特殊差异。结论:从某种意义上说Tightrope是Endobutton的革新版本,手术过程更简单,操作更方便,股骨侧骨道的骨量损失更少。两种方法的临床疗效相似,无明显差异性之分。
[Abstract]:Objective: according to the principle of random grouping, 60 patients with anterior cruciate ligament rupture were divided into two groups to perform anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by Tightrope and Endobutton respectively, and to analyze and compare the relevant parameters before, during and after operation. To analyze the effect of Tightrope and Endobutton in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Methods: from July 2014 to August 2015, 60 patients with anterior cruciate ligament rupture underwent arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tendon in the first affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. The patients were divided into two groups with 30 patients in each group. In one group, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was fixed with Endobutton and 30 cases with Tightrope. Both groups were performed by the same surgeon and a member of the same medical team. Postoperative regular program function exercise, regular outpatient follow-up. The statistical analysis was carried out by SPSS16.0 software, and the mean t test was used to measure the data. Baseline data (such as age per person, number of positive cases of anterior drawer test, etc.) were compared before operation. The corresponding data of two groups were compared during operation (such as length of incision at tendon extraction, bone loss of femur end bone tract, etc.). Knee function (such as Lysholm and Tegner scores) and the incidence of adverse reactions were compared 3 and 6 months after operation. It was used to compare the clinical effect of two kinds of fixation methods in anterior cruciate ligament tendon reconstruction. Results in the comparison of preoperative baseline data between the two groups, the mean t test (P > 0.05) had no statistical difference and was comparable. The corresponding data of the two groups were obtained during operation (length of incision at tendon). The mean t test (P = 0.05) was used to compare the bone loss of femur end. Intraoperative data (length of incision at tendon, The bone loss of femur end in Tightrope group was significantly better than that in Endobutton group. The functional parameters of knee joint (such as Lysholm and Tegner score) were compared between the two groups 3 and 6 months after operation. The mean t test (P = 0.05) was used. There was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference in clinical efficacy between the two surgical methods. Conclusion: compared with Endobutton group, Tightrope group can shorten the operation time, reduce the length of incision and decrease the loss of bone in the femoral bone tunnel. The clinical efficacy of the two groups was similar in 3 and 6 months after operation, but there was no special difference between the two groups. Conclusion: in a sense, Tightrope is an innovative version of Endobutton, the procedure of operation is simpler, the operation is more convenient, and the bone loss of femoral lateral bone canal is less. The clinical efficacy of the two methods was similar, and there was no significant difference between the two methods.
【学位授予单位】：安徽医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：R687.4

【相似文献】