实用手外科杂志
實用手外科雜誌
실용수외과잡지
Journal of Practical Hand Surgery
2015年
3期
250-252
,共3页
郭雅娣%闵捷%吴子征%廖晓辉%朱诚%王炳%王平
郭雅娣%閔捷%吳子徵%廖曉輝%硃誠%王炳%王平
곽아제%민첩%오자정%료효휘%주성%왕병%왕평
锤状指%畸形%外科手术%锚钉%病例对照研究
錘狀指%畸形%外科手術%錨釘%病例對照研究
추상지%기형%외과수술%묘정%병례대조연구
Mallet finger%Deformity%Surgical procedures%Anchor%Case-control study
目的:探讨两种锚钉治疗锤状指畸形的疗效差异,评价两种锚钉的优缺点及注意事项。方法对2012年1月—2014年10月收治的40例锤状指畸形患者,随机分成两组,20例采用直径1.3 mm锚钉(A组);20例采用直径2.0 mm骨锚(B组)。对两组手术时间、手术适应证、术后并发症、治疗效果进行比较。结果术后随访3~6个月,平均4.5个月。其中A组2例在拔除克氏针1周后(术后7周)锚钉脱出,再次出现锤状指畸形,治疗失败,二期行关节融合;B组1例出现克氏针钉道感染、红肿、化脓,拔除克氏针后换药治愈,1例出现线结反应。按Dargan评分,A组优良率85%,B组优良率84%。结论两种锚钉各有利弊,其手术适应证及术后并发症存在差异,手术时间及治疗效果相当,治疗锤状指畸形均可获得较满意的效果。
目的:探討兩種錨釘治療錘狀指畸形的療效差異,評價兩種錨釘的優缺點及註意事項。方法對2012年1月—2014年10月收治的40例錘狀指畸形患者,隨機分成兩組,20例採用直徑1.3 mm錨釘(A組);20例採用直徑2.0 mm骨錨(B組)。對兩組手術時間、手術適應證、術後併髮癥、治療效果進行比較。結果術後隨訪3~6箇月,平均4.5箇月。其中A組2例在拔除剋氏針1週後(術後7週)錨釘脫齣,再次齣現錘狀指畸形,治療失敗,二期行關節融閤;B組1例齣現剋氏針釘道感染、紅腫、化膿,拔除剋氏針後換藥治愈,1例齣現線結反應。按Dargan評分,A組優良率85%,B組優良率84%。結論兩種錨釘各有利弊,其手術適應證及術後併髮癥存在差異,手術時間及治療效果相噹,治療錘狀指畸形均可穫得較滿意的效果。
목적:탐토량충묘정치료추상지기형적료효차이,평개량충묘정적우결점급주의사항。방법대2012년1월—2014년10월수치적40례추상지기형환자,수궤분성량조,20례채용직경1.3 mm묘정(A조);20례채용직경2.0 mm골묘(B조)。대량조수술시간、수술괄응증、술후병발증、치료효과진행비교。결과술후수방3~6개월,평균4.5개월。기중A조2례재발제극씨침1주후(술후7주)묘정탈출,재차출현추상지기형,치료실패,이기행관절융합;B조1례출현극씨침정도감염、홍종、화농,발제극씨침후환약치유,1례출현선결반응。안Dargan평분,A조우량솔85%,B조우량솔84%。결론량충묘정각유리폐,기수술괄응증급술후병발증존재차이,수술시간급치료효과상당,치료추상지기형균가획득교만의적효과。
Objective To explore the clinical results of two different anchor for mallet finger deformity and evaluate the clinical advantages and disadvantages. And attentions. Methods From January 2012 to October 2014, 40 mallet fingers treated using the two type of anchor were included in this retrospect study. They all were men,their ages ranged from 21 to 62 years, with a mean of 42 years. The length of time from the injury to the hospital ranged from 2 hours to 1 month. 26 patients with an acute injury and 14 patients with a chronic mallet deformity. Divided into group A and group B. Random diameter 1.3 mm anchor was carried in 20 patiens (group A); diameter 2.0 mm bone anchor was carried in 20 patiens (group B). We analyzed and compared the the two group cases with operation time, operation indications, postoperative complications and treatment effect. Results At a mean follow-up of 4.5 months (3 to 6 months), 17 patiens (85%) received excellent or good results in group A and 16 patiens (84%)received excellent or good results in group B According to the Dargan evaluation criteria. Conclusion The two anchors have each advantages and disadvantages, differences between operation indications, and postoperative complications. The operation time and the treatment effect was no significant difference. Both of them are a reliable alternative for the treatment of mallet finger deformity, and may obtain a satisfatory outcomes.