外侧半月板腘肌腱裂孔区水平撕裂两种缝合比较△

Comparison of two suture techniques for lateral meniscus horizontal tears at the popliteal hiatus

摘要:

［目的］比较关节镜下缝合钩和 Fast-fix 系统缝合外侧半月板腘肌腱裂孔区水平分层撕裂的临床疗效。［方法］回顾性分析 2018 年 1 月—2020 年 10 月采用镜下手术缝合外侧半月板腘肌腱裂孔区水平分层撕裂 37 例患者的临床资料。依据术前医患沟通结果，18 例采用缝合钩缝合（缝合钩组），19 例采用 Fast-fix 缝合（Fast-fix 组）。［结果］两组患者均顺利完成手术， 术中均无严重并发症。缝合钩组的手术时间显著长于 Fast-fix 组 （P<0.05），但住院费用显著低于 Fast-fix 组 （P<0.05）。所有患者随访至少 6 个月以上，随时间推移，两组的膝伸-屈 ROM 和 Lysholm 评分显著增加 （P<0.05），VAS 评分显著下降 （P< 0.05）。相应时间点，两组间膝伸-屈 ROM、Lysholm 评分和 VAS 评分的差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。［结论］两种技术镜下缝合外侧半月板腘肌腱裂孔区水平分层撕裂均取得良好的临床疗效，相比之下缝合钩技术费用更低。结果

Abstract:

[Objective] To compare the clinical efficacy of arthroscopic suture hook versus fast-fix system in suture of lateral meniscus horizontal tears at the popliteal hiatus. [Methods] A retrospective study was conducted on 37 patients who received arthroscopic surgeries for lateral meniscus horizontal tears at the popliteal hiatus in our hospitals from January 2018 to October 2020. According to preoperative doctor-patient communication, 18 patients had the torn meniscus repaired by suture hook technique (SH group) , while the remaining 19 pa- tients underwent meniscus repair by the fast-fix system (FF group) . [Results] All the patients in both groups had corresponding arthroscop- ic procedures performed smoothly without serious intraoperative complications. The SH consumed significantly longer operative time, whereas significantly lower hospitalization cost than the FF group (P＜0.05) . All patients in both groups were followed for at least 6 months. The knee extension-flexion range of motion (ROM) and Lysholm score were significantly increased (P＜0.05) , whereas the VAS score de- creased significantly over time in both groups (P＜0.05) , which proved not significantly different between the two groups at any correspond- ing time points (P＞0.05) . [Conclusion] Both techniques of arthroscopic suture of lateral meniscus horizontal tears at the popliteal hiatus do achieve good and comparable clinical outcomes, but the suture hook technique is more cost-efficient than the Fast-fix system.