CAJ | 학술논문

背景：关于肩峰下撞击综合征选择关节镜下肩峰下减压术还是开放性手术治疗，目前尚存争议。目的：系统评价关节镜下肩峰下减压术与开放性手术治疗肩峰下撞击综合征的疗效。方法：计算机检索国内外各数据库自建库以来关于关节镜下肩峰下减压术与开放性手术治疗肩峰下撞击综合征的对照试验。不限语种，无论是否为RCTs或是否使用盲法。采用RevMan 5.0软件进行Meta分析。结果与结论：最终纳入10个对照试验，其中随机对照试验4篇，非随机对照试验6篇，共583例肩峰下撞击综合征患者。Meta分析结果显示在住院天数及恢复工作时间方面，关节镜组均少于开放手术组；而在术后肩功能评分、手术时间、患者满意度、术后加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶评分标准(UCLAs)优良率方面，两组差异无显著性意义。但由于纳入的研究在数量和质量上有一定的限制和不足，尚需开展更多大样本、多中心、高质量的随机对照试验加以验证。
배경：관우견봉하당격종합정선택관절경하견봉하감압술환시개방성수술치료，목전상존쟁의。목적：계통평개관절경하견봉하감압술여개방성수술치료견봉하당격종합정적료효。방법：계산궤검색국내외각수거고자건고이래관우관절경하견봉하감압술여개방성수술치료견봉하당격종합정적대조시험。불한어충，무론시부위RCTs혹시부사용맹법。채용RevMan 5.0연건진행Meta분석。결과여결론：최종납입10개대조시험，기중수궤대조시험4편，비수궤대조시험6편，공583례견봉하당격종합정환자。Meta분석결과현시재주원천수급회복공작시간방면，관절경조균소우개방수술조；이재술후견공능평분、수술시간、환자만의도、술후가리복니아대학락삼기평분표준(UCLAs)우량솔방면，량조차이무현저성의의。단유우납입적연구재수량화질량상유일정적한제화불족，상수개전경다대양본、다중심、고질량적수궤대조시험가이험증。
BACKGROUND:It is stil disputed about the treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome at present, arthroscopic subacromial decompression or open subacromial decompression. OBJECTIVE:To assess the clinical therapeutic effects of arthroscopic subacromial decompressionversus open subacromial decompression in the treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome. METHODS:Controled trials on arthroscopic subacromial decompressionversus open acromioplasty in the treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome were colected in different databases through computer search. There was no limitation for language, randomized controled trials or blinded studies. At last, the meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan5.0 software. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:Four randomized controled trials and six non-randomized controled trials were included in this study, involving 583 patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. The results of meta-analysis prompted that as to the hospital inpatient days and time until return to work, the group of arthroscopic subacromial decompression was shorter than open subacromial decompression. However, as to the postoperative shoulder functional scores, the operative time, patient’s satisfaction, and the rate of excelent and good results of postoperative UCLAs, there were no significant statistical differences between two groups. Due to the certain limitations and deficiencies of the quantity and quality in the included trials, there must stil need large-sample, multi-centered, high-quality randomized controled trials to confirm these results.