Suppr超能文献

关节镜内侧半月板缝合修复技术的比较:内-外技术与全内技术修复。

Comparison of arthroscopic medial meniscal suture repair techniques: inside-out versus all-inside repair.

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Eulji Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Am J Sports Med. 2009 Nov;37(11):2144-50. doi: 10.1177/0363546509339010. Epub 2009 Aug 14.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There are no reports comparing meniscal healing between inside-out and all-inside repairs using sutures.

HYPOTHESIS

No difference in healing rate exists between meniscal repairs with inside-out and all-inside suture repair in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Forty-eight consecutive patients underwent meniscal repairs of longitudinal tears of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. All-inside repair was attempted when the tears were located in the red-red zone or the ramp area of the meniscus. If a tear that was in the ramp area or red-red zone extended to the midbody of the meniscus, or if there was a tear in red-white zone, the inside-out repair technique was used. Fourteen patients had all-inside meniscal repairs, and 34 patients had inside-out meniscal repairs with absorbable sutures. Identical postoperative rehabilitation protocols were used. Postoperative evaluations included Lysholm knee scoring scale, Tegner activity levels, Lachman and pivot-shift tests, and KT-1000 arthrometer. Assessment of meniscal status was performed using joint line tenderness, McMurray test, and range of motion. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans were obtained on all patients.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 35.7 months. No patient had joint line tenderness or reported pain or clicking on McMurray test. There was no significant difference in range of motion between groups. Follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans demonstrated that 10 (71.4%) menisci were healed and 4 (28.6%) partially healed in the all-inside group; 24 (70.6%) menisci were healed and 10 (29.4%) partially healed in the inside-out group. There was no significant difference in meniscal healing between groups. There were no differences in Lachman test, KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side differences measurements, Lysholm scores, and Tegner activity scales. There was a significant difference in pivot-shift test between groups (P = .023). There were 2 complications associated with surgery. In the inside-out group, 1 patient required manipulation, and 2 patients had limited motion at final follow-up. Two patients in the inside-out group experienced transient saphenous nerve injury.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in meniscal healing between inside-out and all-inside repair techniques in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.

摘要

背景

目前尚无关于使用缝线进行半月板内缝合与全内缝合修复后半月板愈合情况的比较报道。

假设

在与腘绳肌腱重建前交叉韧带相结合的情况下,半月板内缝合与全内缝合修复的愈合率无差异。

研究设计

队列研究;证据水平,2 级。

方法

48 例连续患者行内侧半月板后角纵行撕裂的半月板修复术,并同期行前交叉韧带重建术。当撕裂位于半月板的红-红区或斜坡区时,尝试全内缝合修复。如果撕裂位于斜坡区或红-红区且延伸至半月板体部,或者撕裂位于红白区,则采用半月板内缝合技术。14 例患者行全内半月板修复术,34 例患者行半月板内缝合术,均使用可吸收缝线。采用相同的术后康复方案。术后评估包括 Lysholm 膝关节评分、Tegner 活动水平、Lachman 和前抽屉试验以及 KT-1000 关节测量仪。采用关节线压痛、McMurray 试验和活动范围评估半月板状态。所有患者均行随访磁共振成像检查。

结果

平均随访 35.7 个月。两组患者均无关节线压痛或 McMurray 试验疼痛或弹响。两组间活动范围无显著差异。随访磁共振成像显示,全内组 10 例(71.4%)半月板愈合,4 例(28.6%)部分愈合;内缝合组 24 例(70.6%)半月板愈合,10 例(29.4%)部分愈合。两组半月板愈合情况无显著差异。Lachman 试验、KT-1000 关节测量仪侧-侧差值测量、Lysholm 评分和 Tegner 活动量表无差异。两组间前抽屉试验差异有统计学意义(P =.023)。手术相关并发症 2 例。内缝合组中,1 例需手法复位,2 例末次随访活动度受限。内缝合组 2 例患者出现短暂隐神经损伤。

结论

在与前交叉韧带重建相结合的情况下,半月板内缝合与全内缝合修复技术的半月板愈合情况无显著差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验