微型骨锚钉与经骨隧道加压缝合治疗拇指锤状指的疗效比较  

Comparative research between mitek mini anchor and compression suture through bone tunnel in the treatment of thumb mallet fingers

作　　者：董春钢[1] 王科杰[1] 胡浩良[1] 陈宏[1] 章伟文[1] 

机构地区：[1]宁波市第六医院手外科,浙江宁波315040

出　　处：《全科医学临床与教育》2012年第5期509-511,共3页Clinical Education of General Practice

摘　　要：目的评价采用微型骨锚钉与经骨隧道加压缝合对伸肌腱止点撕脱的拇指锤状指损伤的治疗效果。方法选择65例拇指锤状指病例,分别采用不同的手术方法进行治疗,其中30例行锚钉固定术,35例行经骨隧道加压缝合。术后全部患者均进行0.5～5年的随访,采用Dargan功能评定法评价疗效并进行比较。结果微型骨锚钉组中优17例、良10例,可3例,优良率为90.00%,经骨隧道加压缝合组中优10例、良8例、可10例、差7例,优良率为51.43%。两组优良率比较,差异有统计学意义(χ2=11.28,P<0.05)。结论采用微型骨锚钉较经骨隧道加压缝合治疗拇指锤状指疗效更确实,采用微型骨锚钉重建伸肌腱止点治疗拇指锤状指,具有操作简单、肌腱修复可靠、术后并发症少的优点。Objective To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of using mitek mini anchor and compression suture through bone tunnel for thumb mallet fingers. Methods Sixty-five cases of thumb mallet fingers were assigned to two groups ： using mitek mini anchor （30 cases） and compression suture through bone tunnel （35 cases）. All cases were followed up for 0.5 to 5 years. The therapeutic efficacy were compared according to Dargan evaluation method. Results The fingers function in anchor group was excellent in 17 of 30 patients, good in 10 and fair in 3; compression suture group was excellent in 10 of 35 patients, good in 8, fair in 10 and poor in 7. There was statistic difference between the two groups （X2=11.28, P〈0.05）. Conclusions The effects of using mitek mini anchor is better than that of the compression suture through bone tunnel method. Using mitek mini anchor to rebuild the extensor tendon adhere point for the treatment of thumb mallet fingers has the advantages of easy manipulation, credible tendon repair and less postoperative complications.

关 键 词：微型骨锚钉 锤状指 手术治疗 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]