机构地区:[1]河南中医药大学第一临床医学院,河南郑州450046 [2]郑州市骨科医院,河南郑州450052
出 处:《中医正骨》2023年第1期30-35,共6页The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology
摘 要:目的:比较切开复位T形钛板联合带线锚钉内固定与单纯切开复位T形钛板内固定治疗单纯后踝骨折合并距腓前韧带(anterior talofibular ligament,ATFL)损伤的临床疗效和安全性。方法:回顾性分析48例单纯后踝骨折合并ATFL损伤患者的病例资料,均采用切开复位T形钛板内固定治疗,其中术中采用带线锚钉修复ATFL损伤24例(ATFL修复组)、未修复ATFL损伤24例(ATFL未修复组)。比较2组患者的骨折愈合时间,术前和术后1年的踝部疼痛视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale,VAS)评分、距骨前移距离,术后1年的美国足与踝关节协会(American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society,AOFAS)踝与后足功能评分,以及并发症发生情况。结果:①骨折愈合时间。ATFL修复组骨折愈合时间与ATFL未修复组比较,差异无统计学意义[(11.83±1.13)周,(11.67±0.82)周,t=0.586,P=0.561]。②踝部疼痛VAS评分。术前,2组患者踝部疼痛VAS评分比较,差异无统计学意义[(6.08±0.72)分,(6.04±0.55)分,t=0.226,P=0.822];术后1年,ATFL修复组患者踝部疼痛VAS评分低于ATFL未修复组[(1.04±0.46)分,(2.54±1.22)分,t=-5.649,P=0.000],2组患者踝部疼痛VAS评分均低于术前(t=32.906,P=0.000;t=14.103,P=0.000)。③距骨前移距离。术前,2组患者距骨前移距离比较,差异无统计学意义[(10.71±1.12)mm,(10.54±1.02)mm,t=0.538,P=0.593];术后1年,ATFL修复组患者距骨前移距离小于ATFL未修复组[(2.25±0.74)mm,(4.88±1.48)mm,t=-7.762,P=0.000],2组患者距骨前移距离均小于术前(t=31.259,P=0.000;t=15.140,P=0.000)。④AOFAS踝与后足功能评分。术后1年,ATFL修复组患者AOFAS踝与后足功能评分高于ATFL未修复组[(92.71±6.56)分,(84.71±6.68)分,t=4.186,P=0.000]。⑤安全性。ATFL修复组1例出现外踝处皮肤感觉减退,ATFL未修复组5例出现慢性踝关节不稳、2例出现距骨骨软骨损伤。2组患者均未出现骨不连、感染、内固定失效等并发症。ATFL修复组并发症发生率低于ATFL�Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of open reduction combined with T-type titanium plate and suture anchor internal fixation and open reduction combined with T-type titanium plate internal fixation in the treatment of posterior malleolus fractures complicated with anterior talofibular ligament(ATFL)injury.Methods:The medical data of 48 patients with posterior malleolus fractures complicated with ATFL injury,who were treated with open reduction combined with T-type titanium plate internal fixation,were retrospectively analyzed,including 24 cases with ATFL injury repaired by suture anchors(the ATFL repair group)and 24 cases with ATFL injury unrepaired(the ATFL non-repair group).The fracture healing time,ankle pain visual analogue scale(VAS)scores and anterior tibial translocation(ATT)measured before operation and at one year after operation,American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society(AOFAS)Ankle-Hindfoot Scale scores measured at one year after operation,and the occurrence of complications were compared between the two groups.Results:①Fracture healing time.There was no significant difference in fracture healing time between the ATFL repair group and the ATFL non-repair group(11.83±1.13 vs 11.67±0.82 weeks,t=0.586,P=0.561).②Ankle pain VAS score.Before operation,there was no significant difference in ankle pain VAS scores between the two groups(6.08±0.72 vs 6.04±0.55 points,t=0.226,P=0.822).One year after operation,the ankle pain VAS score in the ATFL repair group was lower than that in the ATFL non-repair group(1.04±0.46 vs 2.54±1.22 points,t=-5.649,P=0.000).For both groups,the ankle pain VAS scores were lower than those before operation(t=32.906,P=0.000;t=14.103,P=0.000).③ATT.Before operation,there was no significant difference in the ATT between the two groups(10.71±1.12 vs 10.54±1.02 mm,t=0.538,P=0.593).One year after operation,the ATT in the ATFL repair group was smaller than that in the ATFL non-repair group(2.25±0.74 vs 4.88±1.48 mm,t=-7.762,P=0.000).For both groups,the ATT was
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...