微创松解及前置术治疗肘管综合征临床分析  

Analysis of minimally invasive neurolysis and anterior transposition for treatment of cubital tunnel syndrome

作　　者：余英剑[1] 李全[2] 曾春香[3] 

机构地区：[1]深圳市龙岗中心医院,518116 [2]山东省立医院 [3]深圳市龙岗区人民医院

出　　处：《中国现代药物应用》2014年第8期15-16,共2页Chinese Journal of Modern Drug Application

摘　　要：目的探讨肘管综合征两种手术治疗方法的疗效及适应证。方法 50例诊断为肘管综合征的患者,按dellion分级标准:轻度20例,中重度30例。随机将轻度(A组)平均分为A1、A2两组,各10例。中重度(B组)分为B1、B2两组,各15例。A1、B1组患者采用单纯肘管松解术。A2B2组患者采用神经松解加肌内前置术。结果 A组中A1A2组神经恢复良好率分别为100%、90%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),B组中B1的神经恢复率为53.3%。B2为80%。差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论对轻度肘管综合征采用单纯松解术与松解加肌内前置术效果相当,但对于中重度患者,采用肌内前置术效果优于单纯松解术。Objective To study the effect and indications of two operation ways in treating cubital tunnel syndrome.Methods 50 patients of cubital tunnel syndrome were divided into two groups according to the dellion standard, mild （20 cases）, moderate and severe （30 cases）. The mild were randomly separated into two groups , A1 and A2, with 10 cases in each group. While the moderate and severe were separated into Group B1 and B2, with 15 cases in each group. Group A1 and B1 received pure cubital tunnel release surgery, Group A2 and B2 received neurolysis plus intramuscular anterior transposition.Results The excellent or good rate of nerve recovery in Group A1 and B1 were 100% and 90% respectively, which showed no significant difference between these two groups（P＆gt;0.05）. The nerve recovery rate was 53.3% in Group B1 compared to 80% in Group B2 , which stated a significance difference（P＆lt;0.01）.Conclusion For the mild cases of cubital tunnel syndrome, there is no difference betwene pure cubital tunnel release surgery and neurolysis plus intramuscular anterior transposition, but for the moderate and severe cases, the latter is better than the former.

关 键 词：肘管综合征 手术 治疗方法 

分 类 号：R688[医药卫生—骨科学]