中国骨伤
中國骨傷
중국골상
CHINA JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDICS AND TRAUMATOLOGY
2013年
8期
659-662
,共4页
针刀%网球肘%分类法%肘关节
針刀%網毬肘%分類法%肘關節
침도%망구주%분류법%주관절
Needle knife%Tennis elbow%Classification%Elbow joint
目的：观察对不同分型网球肘运用小针刀给予不同治疗的临床疗效。方法：2011年3月至2012年12月共治疗网球肘100例（123肘），男36例，女64例；年龄29～76岁，平均49岁；病史3个月～2年，平均7．2个月。根据患者临床症状和体征将网球肘分为3型：关节外型46例，关节内型34例，关节内外混合型20例。采用针刀根据不同类型分别进行治疗。结果：所有患者获随访，时间6～12个月，平均8．2个月，患者症状体征治疗前后比较，差异有统计学意义。根据Verhaar肘关节疗效评估标准，关节外型46例，优35例，良9例，可2例；关节内型34例，优24例，良9例，可1例；混合型20例，优9例，良8例，可3例。结论：在临床工作中不能用单一的发病机制来解释网球肘的病因，应将网球肘进行分型，并针对不同的分型给予不同的治疗，从而提高网球肘的治愈率。
目的：觀察對不同分型網毬肘運用小針刀給予不同治療的臨床療效。方法：2011年3月至2012年12月共治療網毬肘100例（123肘），男36例，女64例；年齡29～76歲，平均49歲；病史3箇月～2年，平均7．2箇月。根據患者臨床癥狀和體徵將網毬肘分為3型：關節外型46例，關節內型34例，關節內外混閤型20例。採用針刀根據不同類型分彆進行治療。結果：所有患者穫隨訪，時間6～12箇月，平均8．2箇月，患者癥狀體徵治療前後比較，差異有統計學意義。根據Verhaar肘關節療效評估標準，關節外型46例，優35例，良9例，可2例；關節內型34例，優24例，良9例，可1例；混閤型20例，優9例，良8例，可3例。結論：在臨床工作中不能用單一的髮病機製來解釋網毬肘的病因，應將網毬肘進行分型，併針對不同的分型給予不同的治療，從而提高網毬肘的治愈率。
목적：관찰대불동분형망구주운용소침도급여불동치료적림상료효。방법：2011년3월지2012년12월공치료망구주100례（123주），남36례，녀64례；년령29～76세，평균49세；병사3개월～2년，평균7．2개월。근거환자림상증상화체정장망구주분위3형：관절외형46례，관절내형34례，관절내외혼합형20례。채용침도근거불동류형분별진행치료。결과：소유환자획수방，시간6～12개월，평균8．2개월，환자증상체정치료전후비교，차이유통계학의의。근거Verhaar주관절료효평고표준，관절외형46례，우35례，량9례，가2례；관절내형34례，우24례，량9례，가1례；혼합형20례，우9례，량8례，가3례。결론：재림상공작중불능용단일적발병궤제래해석망구주적병인，응장망구주진행분형，병침대불동적분형급여불동적치료，종이제고망구주적치유솔。
Objective:To observe clinical effect of different treatments for tennis elbow with small needle-knife according to its classification. Methods:From March 2011 to December 2012,100 patients with 123 tennis elbows were treated with small needle-knife,including 36 males and 64 females,ranging in age from 29 to 76 years old (averaged,49 years old). The course of disease ranged from 3 months to 2 years (averaged,7.2 months). According to the classification,46 elbows were with extra-articular type,34 elbows with intra articular type,20 elbows with mixed type. All the patients were treated with small needle-knife by using different methods according to its classification. Results:All patients were followed up for 6 to12 months with an average of 8.2 months. After treatment,the symptoms and signs of the patients improved significantly (P<0.01). Ac-cording to the criteria of the Verhaar scoring system,35 of 46 patients with extra articular type got an excellent result,9 good,2 fair;24 of 34 patients with intra articular type got an excellent result,9 good,1 fair;9 of 20 patients with mixed type got an ex-cellent result,8 good ,3 fair. Conclusion:The causes of tennis elbow can not be explained by single pathogenesy ,the patients with tennis elbow should be treated with different methods according to its classification ,and the therapeutic effects can be im-proved.
