Suppr超能文献

关节镜下 Bankart 修复术采用打结与免打结缝线锚钉修复的比较研究。

Knot-Tying versus Knotless Suture Anchors for Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Comparative Study.

机构信息

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sungkyunkwan University College of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.

出版信息

Yonsei Med J. 2021 Aug;62(8):743-749. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2021.62.8.743.

Abstract

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the results of using knotless and knot-tying suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between 2011 and 2017 using knot-tying and knotless suture anchors were retrospectively reviewed. We collected demographic data, clinical scores (pain visual analogue scale), functional visual analogue scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Society scores, and Rowe score), and range of motion (ROM). Re-dislocation and subjective anterior apprehension test rates between the two techniques were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 154 patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair, 115 patients (knot-tying group: n=61 and knotless group: n=54) were included in this study. Of the 115 patients, 102 were male and 13 were female. The mean patient age was 27 years (range: 17-60), and the mean follow-up period was 43 months (range: 24-99). There were no significant differences in the final clinical scores and ROM between the two groups. Re-dislocation was observed in 6 (9.8%) and 4 (7.3%) patients in the knot-tying and knotless groups, respectively. Apprehension was observed in 11 (18.0%) and 12 (22.2%) patients in the knot-tying and knotless groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in regards to re-dislocation and anterior apprehension.

CONCLUSION

Re-dislocation rates and clinical scores were similar with the use of knotless and knot-tying suture anchors in arthroscopic Bankart repair after a minimal 2 year follow-up.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较使用无结和打结缝线锚钉进行关节镜下 Bankart 修复的结果。

材料和方法

回顾性分析 2011 年至 2017 年间使用打结和无结缝线锚钉进行关节镜下 Bankart 修复的患者。我们收集了人口统计学数据、临床评分(疼痛视觉模拟评分)、功能视觉模拟评分、美国肩肘协会评分和 Rowe 评分)以及活动范围(ROM)。还分析了两种技术之间的再脱位率和主观前触诊试验率。

结果

在 154 例接受关节镜 Bankart 修复的患者中,115 例(打结组:n=61,无结组:n=54)纳入本研究。115 例患者中,男 102 例,女 13 例。患者平均年龄为 27 岁(范围:17-60 岁),平均随访时间为 43 个月(范围:24-99 个月)。两组最终临床评分和 ROM 无显著差异。在打结组和无结组中,分别有 6 例(9.8%)和 4 例(7.3%)患者发生再脱位。在打结组和无结组中,分别有 11 例(18.0%)和 12 例(22.2%)患者出现前触诊。两组在再脱位和前触诊方面无显著差异。

结论

在至少 2 年的随访后,关节镜下 Bankart 修复中使用无结和打结缝线锚钉的再脱位率和临床评分相似。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/14b3/8298872/b9eca0da5dc1/ymj-62-743-g001.jpg

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