解剖单束重建前交叉韧带与传统方法重建前交叉韧带的临床对比研究

发布时间：2018-07-18 09:42

【摘要】：目的比较解剖单束重建和传统单束重建前交叉韧带的临床效果,为临床手术方式的选择提供理论依据与参考。方法自2010年7月至2012年4月,共有246例患者在我院进行了ACL重建手术,其中,自2010年7月至2011年6月,共进行了127例传统的单束前交叉韧带重建手术,之后我们均采用解剖单束重建的手术方式,共进行了119例。最终,共83例患者入选了本研究,其中传统重建组46例,解剖重建组37例。传统重建组中,男性33例,女性13例,平均年龄29.5岁(19-44岁);解剖重建组中,男性26例,女性11例,平均年龄31.9岁(20-42岁)。比较两组手术技术术后膝关节主观功能评分(IKDC分级和Lysholm评分)、稳定性评估(Lachman试验、轴移试验和KT1000测量)结果。结果在术后随访时,两组患者在KT1000侧侧差值、Lachman试验结果、轴移试验结果、Lysholm评分和IKDC分级方面均没有显著性差异。两组均无术后感染、膝关节僵硬、移植物失效等并发症。解剖单束重建组轴移试验的结果虽然与传统单束重建组无显著性差异,但总体上来看有优于传统单束重建组的趋势(P=0.064)。结论两组患者在年龄、性别、受伤侧别和受伤至手术时间上无显著性差异;两组患者术前主观和客观评估结果也无显著差异。解剖单束重建与传统单束重建相比,在临床评分和前后向稳定性上均无明显优势,但解剖单束重建可以更好地控制膝关节的旋转稳定性。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：青岛大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：R687.4

【参考文献】