Kumar Amit, Gupta Amit, Ghosh Rajarshi, Pandey Rajeev, Kumar Sanjeev
ITS Dental College, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr. 2020 Jun;13(2):99-104. doi: 10.1177/1943387520911826. Epub 2020 Mar 17.
The purpose of the study was to compare 2 techniques of arthrocentesis, to find out the efficacy of one over the other at various parameters, and to contribute to the scarce literature of these 2 techniques. Forty patients reported with a chief complaint of pain in temporomandibular joint (TMJ), clicking in TMJ, and restricted mouth opening were included in this study. Twenty patients were divided into 2 groups, all reporting with temporomandibular disorders. Group A was treated with 2-needle technique of arthrocentesis, while group B underwent concentric needle technique of arthrocentesis under local anesthesia with Ringer's lactate solution. The operating time was found to be less in concentric needle technique (mean: 25.36 minutes) compared to 2-needle technique (mean: 42.82 minutes), and the difference was found to be statistically significant. Concentric needle technique proved to be a better alternative for TMJ arthrocentesis as it has quite a lot of advantages over 2-needle technique.
本研究的目的是比较两种关节穿刺技术,找出在各项参数上一种技术相对于另一种技术的疗效,并为这两种技术的稀缺文献做出贡献。本研究纳入了40例以颞下颌关节(TMJ)疼痛、TMJ弹响和张口受限为主诉的患者。20例患者被分为两组,均患有颞下颌关节紊乱症。A组采用双针关节穿刺技术治疗,而B组在局部麻醉下使用乳酸林格氏液进行同心针关节穿刺技术治疗。结果发现,同心针技术的手术时间(平均:25.36分钟)比双针技术(平均:42.82分钟)短,且差异具有统计学意义。同心针技术被证明是TMJ关节穿刺的更好选择,因为它相对于双针技术有很多优势。