骨骼肌包埋神经片段桥接与神经移植修复神经缺损的比较  

Comparison of degenerated muscle graft combined with nervous fragment with nerve grafting in the treatment of peripheral nerve defects.

作　　者：万智勇[1] 张帆[1] 陈初勇[1] 华擎 吴健[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江省人民医院骨科,杭州310014

出　　处：《中国临床医学杂志》1998年第4期207-208,共2页

摘　　要：目的:报导1993年1月～1997年10月应用自体神经移植及骨骼肌包埋自体神经片段桥接修复48例60条神经缺损,并比较两者的疗效;方法:其中30例38条神经行神经移植,18例22条神经行骨骼肌包埋自体神经片段桥接;结果:术后随访8mo～24mo,按MCRR标准对肢体神经运动感觉功能评定疗效;优良率神经移植组2cm～5cm,占83.8％,6cm～10cm,占76.9％,11cm～20cm,占57.1％,骨骼肌包埋自体神经片段桥接组2cm～5cm,占80％,6cm～10cm占62.5％,11cm～20cm,占50％;结论:两者疗效在短距离或长距离缺损时差异不明显,而中等距离缺损时疗效有差异。object: Reported using degenerated muscle grafts combined with nervous fragment or auto-nerve grafting in the treatment of peripheral nerve defects and comparing the results of the two methods, Methods: 38 branches of nerve defects in 30 cases were treated with auto-nerve grafting. while others 22 branches in 18 cases with degenerated muscle grafts combined with nerve fragment. Result: After 8 to 24 mouths post ?operative follow - up according to the MCRR Criterion, evaluated the results between the two methods. in movement and sense. excellent and good rates: auto-nerve grafting group: in length of (2 cm^5 cm) 83.8 % ; (6 cm~ 10 cm) 76.9 %; (11 cm^20 cm) 57.1 % degenented muscle graft combined with nerve fragment group, in length of (2 cm^5 cm) 80 %; (6 cm^10 cm) 62.5 %; (11 cm^20 cm) 50 %. Conclusion: In shorter or longer distance nerve defects, the two methods showed no difference, but in middle distance nerve defects showed obvious difference.

关 键 词：神经移植 骨骼肌包埋 自体神经片段 神经缺损 

分 类 号：R651.305[医药卫生—外科学] R622.3[医药卫生—临床医学]