Suppr超能文献

两种双纽扣内镜辅助手术技术治疗急性肩锁关节脱位的比较。

A comparison between two double-button endoscopically assisted surgical techniques for the treatment acute acromioclavicular dislocations.

作者信息

Vulliet P, Le Hanneur M, Cladiere V, Loriaut P, Boyer P

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology - Service of Hand, Upper Limb and Peripheral Nerve Surgery - Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Georges Pompidou European Hospital (HEGP), Paris Descartes University, 20 Rue Leblanc, 75015, Paris, France.

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Bichat - Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris Diderot University, 46 Rue Henri Huchard, 75018, Paris, France.

出版信息

Musculoskelet Surg. 2018 Apr;102(1):73-79. doi: 10.1007/s12306-017-0501-0. Epub 2017 Aug 31.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare clinical and radiological outcomes between two endoscopically assisted double-button techniques in high-grade acute acromioclavicular separations.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was conducted in patients with acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation Rockwood types III and V, from 2009 to 2014. All were treated endoscopically, with a 1-year minimum follow-up. Two consecutive series were conducted; the first (TR group) received the TightRope system, whereas last series (DB group) was treated with the Dog Bone button technology (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA). Primary endpoints were last follow-up values of Constant score (CS) and Quick-DASH (QD) score. Moreover, the posttraumatic displacement and its evolution were assessed on bilateral Zanca radiographs. A displacement of 5 mm or greater the day after surgery was considered as a lack of reduction; the same difference on last follow-up X-rays was considered as a loss of reduction.

RESULTS

Forty patients were reviewed: 22 in the TR group and 18 in the DB group. After a mean follow-up of 27.7 ± 8.3 months, CS and QD averaged, respectively, 94.3 ± 4.4 and 2.0 ± 2.6 in the TR series, whereas they averaged, respectively, 95 ± 6.1 and 3.4 ± 3.3 in the DB series after a mean follow-up of 24.1 ± 5 months (PCS = 0.16, PQDS = 0.08). Lack of reduction and loss of reduction rates were significantly higher in the DB group, with P = 0.0005 and P < 0.0001, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques provided good to excellent functional outcomes. However, considering inferior radiological results using the Dog Bone device, we would prefer the TightRope device in acute acromioclavicular dislocations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV: Therapeutic study-cases series.

摘要

目的

比较两种内镜辅助双纽扣技术治疗重度急性肩锁关节脱位的临床和影像学结果。

方法

对2009年至2014年期间急性肩锁关节脱位Rockwood III型和V型患者进行一项回顾性单中心研究。所有患者均接受内镜治疗,随访至少1年。连续进行了两个系列研究;第一个系列(TR组)采用TightRope系统治疗,而最后一个系列(DB组)采用犬骨纽扣技术(美国佛罗里达州那不勒斯市的Arthrex公司生产)治疗。主要终点指标为末次随访时的Constant评分(CS)和Quick-DASH(QD)评分。此外,通过双侧Zanca位X线片评估创伤后移位情况及其演变。术后第1天移位5mm或更大被视为复位不佳;末次随访X线片上出现相同程度的差异被视为复位丢失。

结果

共纳入40例患者进行评估:TR组22例,DB组18例。TR组平均随访27.7±8.3个月,CS和QD评分分别平均为94.3±4.4和2.0±2.6;DB组平均随访24.1±5个月,CS和QD评分分别平均为95±6.1和3.4±3.3(PCS = 0.16,PQDS = 0.08)。DB组复位不佳和复位丢失率显著更高,分别为P = 0.0005和P < 0.0001。

结论

两种技术均能提供良好至优秀的功能结果。然而,考虑到使用犬骨装置的影像学结果较差,对于急性肩锁关节脱位,我们更倾向于使用TightRope装置。

证据级别

IV:治疗性病例系列研究。

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