膝骨性关节炎关节镜下微骨折技术的两种术式比较

Comparison of two kinds of microfracture operations under arthroscope in treating knee osteoarthritis

目的对膝骨性关节炎关节镜下2种"微骨折"技术的操作方法进行临床效果比较。方法从2001年3月～2005年8月,该科用关节镜手术治疗膝骨性关节炎61例,对软骨破坏裸露区的处理分别采用清理后钻孔法30例和磨削后打孔法31例的"微骨折"技术,并将2组疗效进行对比。结果采用清理后钻孔法的"微骨折"技术治疗的患者中显效的有8例,有效的有14例,无效的有8例;采用磨削后打孔法的患者中显效的有19例,有效的有8例,无效的有4例,2组比较有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论关节镜下采用磨削后打孔的"微骨折"技术治疗膝骨性关节炎较清理后钻孔法好,是一种简便、实用疗效显著的的可行性技术。

[Objective] To compare the methods of two kinds of operation and their clinical curative effect using microfracure under arthroscope. [Method] Between March 2001 and August 2005, 61 patients of knee osteoarthritis were treated under arthroscope. To the fullthickness chondral defect, a group with 30 patients treated by debridement and drilling under arthroscope, and the other group with 31 patients was treated by the microfracture of grinding and perforating. At last clinical outcome was evaluated by posttreatment symptoms between the two groups. [Result] In the patients using debridement and drilling, eight were excellent, fourteen were effective and eight were ineffective. In the patiens of using grinding and perforating, nineteens were excellence, eights were effective and fours were ineffective. There was significant difference between the two treatment methods （P 〈0.05）. [Concloution] The microfracture of grinding and perforating under arthroscope is better than debridement and drilling, and is a technique deserving practise, and is also a convenient, useful technique with significant of curative effect.