摘要
【目的】探讨关节镜下FAST-fix360与Omnispan半月板缝合器修复半月板损伤的手术与康复方法及临床效果。【方法】30例半月板撕裂患者采用随机数字法分成两组,每组15例,在膝关节镜下分别采用FAST-fix360与Omnispan半月板缝合器修复损伤的内外侧半月板,术后进行延续康复。对比两组半月板损伤缝合方法,采用Lysholm评分及Tegner评分对两组的临床治疗效果进行评价。【结果】术后随访两组病例均未发现术中神经、血管、肌腱损伤,术后FAST-fix360组1例感染。Omnispan组愈合率为93.3%,FAST-fix360组愈合率为100%,且术后两组Lysholm评分及Tegner评分分别为(91.6±6.8)分和(89.5±6.2)分,(8.1±0.6)分和(7.9±0.7)分,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。【结论】FAST-fix360与Omnispan半月板修复系统虽然固定方式和缝合方法有所不同,但术中个性化操作,术后制定结合产品特性的康复计划,半月板均可获得较高的愈合率。
【Objective】To explore the therapeutic effect between two latest arthroscopic meniscus repair system.【Methods】30 patients with meniscus tear random divided into two groups,which treated with the FAST-fix360 and Omnispan arthroscopic meniscus repair system,respectively.After surgery all patients were given the rehabilitation.Then compare the Lysholm score and Tegner score in patients of two groups before and after the surgery.【Results】TThere was no nerve,blood vessel and tendon injuries in two goups through the postoperative follow-up,1 case of infection happened in FAST-fix360.The healing rate of Omnispan was 87.5% compared with 100% in FAST-fix360 group.The Lysholm score were 91.6±6.8 and 89.5±6.2,and the Tegner score were 8.1±0.6 and 7.9±0.7 in two groups.There was no significance difference above（P〉0.05）.【Conclusion】Although the fixed way and stitching method is different in two groups,but though the personalized operation,postoperative rehabilitation combined with the characteristics of the product,there are almost higher healing rate of meniscus in two products.
出处
《武警后勤学院学报（医学版）》
CAS
2017年第10期858-861,共4页
Journal of Logistics University of PAP（Medical Sciences）
