膝关节镜Clearfix与FasT-Fix半月板修复系统修复半月板损伤的比较

A clinical comparison of two arthroscopic meniscal repair systems

目的比较膝关节镜Clearfix与FasT—Fix半月板修复系统修复半月板损伤的临床愈合率。方法1998年11月-2001年6月，膝关节镜下采用Clearfix系统修复半月板损伤50例；2001年6月～2002年12月，关节镜下采用FasT—Fix系统修复半月板损伤61例。比较2组半月板损伤的临床愈合率。判断半月板损伤临床愈合的标准包括关节无交锁、无肿胀、关节间隙无压痛以及McMurray试验阴性。结果Clearfix组平均随访19个月（12—48个月），根据临床标准12例半月板修复术失败，临床愈合率为75．O％（36／48）；FasT—Fix组平均随访18个月（14—28个月），5例半月板修复术失败，临床愈合率为91．4％（53／58）。Fast-Fix组半月板临床愈合率显著高于Clearfix组（Z=-2．277，P=0．023）。结论与Clearfix系统相比，FasT—Fix系统修复半月板损伤可获得较高的临床愈合率。

Objective To compare the clinical healing rate of meniscal repair between two arthroscopic meniscal repair systems： the Clearfix System and the FasT-Fix system. Methods There were 50 arthroscopic meniscal repairs with the Clearfix System from November 1998 to June 2001 （Clearfix Group） and 61 meniscal repairs with the FasT-Fix meniscal repair system from June 2001 to December 2002 （FasT-Fix Group） in this hospital. The clinical healing rates between the two groups was compared. Criteria for clinical healing included absence of locking, swelling, or joint-line tenderness, and a negative McMurray test. Results In the Clearfix Group, follow-up observations for 12 -48 months （ mean, 19 months） found 12 cases of operation failure and a meniscal healing rate of 75,0% （36/48） , while in the FasT-Fix Group, the duration of follow-up was 14 -28 months （mean, 18 months） and there were 5 cases of operation failure, the healing rate being 91.4% （53/58）. The FasT-Fix Group had a significantly higher rate of healing compared with the Clearfix Group （ Z = - 2. 277, P = 0. 023 ）. Conclusions As compared with the Clearfix System, the FasT-Fix system offers a higher meniscal healing rate.