浙江创伤外科
浙江創傷外科
절강창상외과
ZHEJIANG JOURNAL OF TRAUMATIC SURGERY
2015年
1期
10-12
,共3页
膝关节骨性关节炎%关节镜清理术%中药熏洗%临床疗效
膝關節骨性關節炎%關節鏡清理術%中藥熏洗%臨床療效
슬관절골성관절염%관절경청리술%중약훈세%림상료효
knee osteoarthritis%arthroscopic debridement%herbal fumigation%clinical effects
目的：观察分析关节镜清理术联合中药熏洗对膝关节骨性关节炎的临床疗效。方法选取2011年10月至2013年10月本院膝关节骨性关节炎患者80例，按照治疗方法不同随机平分为两组，分别行关节镜膝关节清理术结合中药熏洗（观察组）和单纯关节镜膝关节清理术（对照组）治疗。观察比较两组治疗前后膝关节活动度、Lysholm膝关节功能评分、VAS评分及临床疗效评估。结果术后通过电话或上门方式进行随访约（16.53±1.68）个月，各组组内术后膝关节活动度、VAS评分、Lysholm评分均较术前有显著差异，比较具有统计学意义，（P＜0.05）。观察组术后术后膝关节活动度、VAS评分、Lysholm评分均优于对照组，比较具有统计学意义，（P＜0.05）。两组术后无严重并发症发生。观察组疗效评估，临床控制14例，显效19例，有效6例，无效1例，有效率为97.5%。对照组疗效评估，临床控制11例，显效15例，有效9例，无效5例，有效率为87.5%。结论关节镜清理术联合中药熏洗治疗膝关节骨性关节炎临床疗效优于单纯关节镜清理术，方法安全可靠，适应临床广泛应用。
目的：觀察分析關節鏡清理術聯閤中藥熏洗對膝關節骨性關節炎的臨床療效。方法選取2011年10月至2013年10月本院膝關節骨性關節炎患者80例，按照治療方法不同隨機平分為兩組，分彆行關節鏡膝關節清理術結閤中藥熏洗（觀察組）和單純關節鏡膝關節清理術（對照組）治療。觀察比較兩組治療前後膝關節活動度、Lysholm膝關節功能評分、VAS評分及臨床療效評估。結果術後通過電話或上門方式進行隨訪約（16.53±1.68）箇月，各組組內術後膝關節活動度、VAS評分、Lysholm評分均較術前有顯著差異，比較具有統計學意義，（P＜0.05）。觀察組術後術後膝關節活動度、VAS評分、Lysholm評分均優于對照組，比較具有統計學意義，（P＜0.05）。兩組術後無嚴重併髮癥髮生。觀察組療效評估，臨床控製14例，顯效19例，有效6例，無效1例，有效率為97.5%。對照組療效評估，臨床控製11例，顯效15例，有效9例，無效5例，有效率為87.5%。結論關節鏡清理術聯閤中藥熏洗治療膝關節骨性關節炎臨床療效優于單純關節鏡清理術，方法安全可靠，適應臨床廣汎應用。
목적：관찰분석관절경청리술연합중약훈세대슬관절골성관절염적림상료효。방법선취2011년10월지2013년10월본원슬관절골성관절염환자80례，안조치료방법불동수궤평분위량조，분별행관절경슬관절청리술결합중약훈세（관찰조）화단순관절경슬관절청리술（대조조）치료。관찰비교량조치료전후슬관절활동도、Lysholm슬관절공능평분、VAS평분급림상료효평고。결과술후통과전화혹상문방식진행수방약（16.53±1.68）개월，각조조내술후슬관절활동도、VAS평분、Lysholm평분균교술전유현저차이，비교구유통계학의의，（P＜0.05）。관찰조술후술후슬관절활동도、VAS평분、Lysholm평분균우우대조조，비교구유통계학의의，（P＜0.05）。량조술후무엄중병발증발생。관찰조료효평고，림상공제14례，현효19례，유효6례，무효1례，유효솔위97.5%。대조조료효평고，림상공제11례，현효15례，유효9례，무효5례，유효솔위87.5%。결론관절경청리술연합중약훈세치료슬관절골성관절염림상료효우우단순관절경청리술，방법안전가고，괄응림상엄범응용。
Objective To bserve and analyze the clinical effect of treating knee osteoarthritis by arthroscopic debridement combining with herbal fumigation. Methods 80 patients suffered from knee osteoarthritis in our hospital from October 2011 to October 2013 were selected, and di-vided into two groups according to different treating methods: arthroscopic debridement combining herbal fumigation (observation group), single arthroscopic debridement (control group). The range of motion, Lysholm knee function score, VAS score and clinical effects evaluation before and after the treatment were recorded. Results Patients were follow-up for 16.53 ±1.68 months. There was no serious complications in the 2 groups. The range of motion, VAS score and Lysholm score in the two groups after operation had significant difference than those before operation (P<0.05). After operation, the range of motion, VAS score and Lysholm knee function score,in the observation group were significantly better than those in the control group (P<0.05) . In observation group, according to the evaluation of clinical effects, clinical control 14 cases, excellent 19 cases, effective 6 cases, inefficient 1 case, the effective rate was 97.5%. In control group, clinical control 11 cases, excellent 15 cases, effective 9 cases, inefficient 5 cases, the effective rate was 87.5%. Conclusion compared with single arthroscopic debridement, arthroscopic debridement combining herbal fumigation had a better clinical effect on treating knee osteoarthritis, and the method was safe and reliable.
