中国组织工程研究
中國組織工程研究
중국조직공정연구
Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research
2013年
4期
599-603
,共5页
骨关节植入物%人工假体%全膝关节置换%SF-36 健康问卷%膝关节 HSS 评分%骨性关节炎%类风湿性关节炎%假体%植入物
骨關節植入物%人工假體%全膝關節置換%SF-36 健康問捲%膝關節 HSS 評分%骨性關節炎%類風濕性關節炎%假體%植入物
골관절식입물%인공가체%전슬관절치환%SF-36 건강문권%슬관절 HSS 평분%골성관절염%류풍습성관절염%가체%식입물
bone and joint implants%artificial prosthesis%total knee arthroplasty%SF-36 health questionnaire%the HSS score%osteoarthritis%rheumatoid arthritis%prosthesis%implants
背景:膝关节置换一期双侧置换还是单膝分期置换一直存在着争议.目的:评价双膝关节疾病患者一期双侧全膝关节置换与选择性单侧全膝关节置换后早期临床疗效及SF-36健康问卷调查差异.方法:初次行全膝关节置换的患者144例190膝,均采用施乐辉公司假体行一期双膝全膝关节置换(双膝组)及一期选择性单膝全膝关节置换(单膝组).观察患者膝关节置换前后活动范围、HSS 评分及疼痛评分、置换后并发症及置换后 SF-36量表调查结果.结果与结论:随访1年,9例失访,135例进入结果分析.膝关节置换后双膝组1例发生一过性腓总神经麻痹,1例获得性免疫缺陷综合征,1例发生切口愈合不良;单膝组发生2例切口愈合不良.膝关节置换后1年,SF-36量表调查,两组除生理职能比较差异有显著性意义(P <0.05)外,其余7方面比较差异均无显著性意义(P >0.05);两组活动范围比较差异无显著性意义(P >0.05);两组 HSS 评分比较差异无显著性意义(P >0.05);双膝组疼痛评分显著低于单膝组(P <0.05).结果证实,双膝组膝关节置换后早期在疼痛评分方面优于单膝组,但 SF-36量表评价、HSS 膝关节功能评分及关节活动范围等方面较单膝组无明显优势.
揹景:膝關節置換一期雙側置換還是單膝分期置換一直存在著爭議.目的:評價雙膝關節疾病患者一期雙側全膝關節置換與選擇性單側全膝關節置換後早期臨床療效及SF-36健康問捲調查差異.方法:初次行全膝關節置換的患者144例190膝,均採用施樂輝公司假體行一期雙膝全膝關節置換(雙膝組)及一期選擇性單膝全膝關節置換(單膝組).觀察患者膝關節置換前後活動範圍、HSS 評分及疼痛評分、置換後併髮癥及置換後 SF-36量錶調查結果.結果與結論:隨訪1年,9例失訪,135例進入結果分析.膝關節置換後雙膝組1例髮生一過性腓總神經痳痺,1例穫得性免疫缺陷綜閤徵,1例髮生切口愈閤不良;單膝組髮生2例切口愈閤不良.膝關節置換後1年,SF-36量錶調查,兩組除生理職能比較差異有顯著性意義(P <0.05)外,其餘7方麵比較差異均無顯著性意義(P >0.05);兩組活動範圍比較差異無顯著性意義(P >0.05);兩組 HSS 評分比較差異無顯著性意義(P >0.05);雙膝組疼痛評分顯著低于單膝組(P <0.05).結果證實,雙膝組膝關節置換後早期在疼痛評分方麵優于單膝組,但 SF-36量錶評價、HSS 膝關節功能評分及關節活動範圍等方麵較單膝組無明顯優勢.
배경:슬관절치환일기쌍측치환환시단슬분기치환일직존재착쟁의.목적:평개쌍슬관절질병환자일기쌍측전슬관절치환여선택성단측전슬관절치환후조기림상료효급SF-36건강문권조사차이.방법:초차행전슬관절치환적환자144례190슬,균채용시악휘공사가체행일기쌍슬전슬관절치환(쌍슬조)급일기선택성단슬전슬관절치환(단슬조).관찰환자슬관절치환전후활동범위、HSS 평분급동통평분、치환후병발증급치환후 SF-36량표조사결과.결과여결론:수방1년,9례실방,135례진입결과분석.슬관절치환후쌍슬조1례발생일과성비총신경마비,1례획득성면역결함종합정,1례발생절구유합불량;단슬조발생2례절구유합불량.슬관절치환후1년,SF-36량표조사,량조제생리직능비교차이유현저성의의(P <0.05)외,기여7방면비교차이균무현저성의의(P >0.05);량조활동범위비교차이무현저성의의(P >0.05);량조 HSS 평분비교차이무현저성의의(P >0.05);쌍슬조동통평분현저저우단슬조(P <0.05).결과증실,쌍슬조슬관절치환후조기재동통평분방면우우단슬조,단 SF-36량표평개、HSS 슬관절공능평분급관절활동범위등방면교단슬조무명현우세.
BACKGROUND: There is a controversy on one-stage bilateral knee joint and unilateral knee joint replacement. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate early clinical efficacy and SF-36 health survey differences on the patients with bilateral knee disease after bilateral knee joint replacement and selective unilateral knee joint replacement. METHODS: A total of 144 patients (190 knees) were treated with bilateral knee joint replacement (bilateral group) and selective unilateral knee joint replacement (unilateral group), the prostheses were made by Smith & Nephew (GenesisTM ‖ smith & nephew). The range of motion, hospital for special surgery (HSS) score and visual analogous scale score, as wel as the postoperative complications and postoperative SF-36 survey results were observed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: After one-year fol ow-up, 9 cases were lost and 135 patients entered the final analysis. In the bilateral group, there was 1 case of transient peroneal nerve palsy, 1 case of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and 1 case of poor wound healing; in unilateral group, there were 2 cases of poor wound healing. At 1 year after replacement, SF-36 survey results showed that there was a significant difference of physiological function between two groups (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference of the other seven factors between two groups (P > 0.05); there was no significant difference of range of motion and HSS score between two groups (P > 0.05); the visual analogous scale score in the bilateral group was lower than that in the unilateral group (P < 0.05). Results show that the early visual analogous scale score in the bilateral group is lower than that in the unilateral group, however, there is no significant difference of the SF-36 survey, HSS score and range of motion between two groups.
