双穿刺与单穿刺关节穿刺术：一项 3 年随访的随机对照试验。
Double-Puncture Versus Single-Puncture Arthrocentesis: A Randomized Controlled Trial with 3 Years of Follow-Up.
出版信息
J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2022;36(2):141-146. doi: 10.11607/ofph.3074.
AIMS
To compare the clinical effectiveness of conventional double-puncture vs single-puncture type 2 arthrocentesis for management of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc displacement without reduction (DDWOR) after 3 years of follow-up.
METHODS
A total of 26 patients with DDWOR were randomly and blindly allocated into two treatment groups (n = 13 each): group 1 = conventional double-puncture arthrocentesis; group 2 = single-puncture type 2 arthrocentesis. Data on gender, side of painful joint complaint, age (years), duration of joint pain (months), maximum interincisal distance (MID, mm), and pain intensity (self-reported with a 0-10 visual analog scale [VAS]) were collected. VAS scores and MID were measured before (baseline) and 3 years after (final) the arthrocentesis.
RESULTS
Twenty-three patients completed the study (group 1, n = 11; group 2, n = 12). Both techniques resulted in significantly reduced VAS scores and increased MID (P = .001) after the 3 years of follow-up; however, there were no statistically significant differences between techniques (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
The two arthrocentesis methods tested were both effective in reducing VAS scores and increasing MID in patients with DDWOR.
目的
比较常规双穿刺与单穿刺 2 型关节腔穿刺术治疗未经复位的颞下颌关节（TMJ）盘移位（DDWOR）的 3 年随访临床效果。
方法
将 26 例 DDWOR 患者随机、盲法分为两组（每组 13 例）：组 1 = 常规双穿刺关节腔穿刺术；组 2 = 单穿刺 2 型关节腔穿刺术。收集性别、疼痛关节侧别、年龄（岁）、关节疼痛持续时间（月）、最大开口度（MID，mm）和疼痛强度（0-10 视觉模拟评分法[VAS]自评）等数据。在关节腔穿刺术前（基线）和 3 年后（终末）测量 VAS 评分和 MID。
结果
23 例患者完成了研究（组 1，n = 11；组 2，n = 12）。两种技术在 3 年随访后均显著降低了 VAS 评分并增加了 MID（P =.001）；然而，两种技术之间没有统计学上的显著差异（P > 0.05）。
结论
两种关节腔穿刺术在治疗 DDWOR 患者时均有效降低 VAS 评分和增加 MID。
Zotero 插件