《人体损伤致残程度分级》与GEPI对足踝伤残评定的比较

Foot and ankle impairment of lower extremities : comparative study on Classification of the impairment related to injury and GEPI

目的本文通过对《人体损伤致残程度分级》和GEPI有关下肢足踝评定的内容进行比较研究,为《人体损伤致残程度分级》的修订提供建议。方法从条款分布、两个标准适用时的具体评定方法等方面对二者进行比较,并以GEPI足踝评定的残损值为参照,计算、分析《人体损伤致残程度分级》下肢条款致残率合理性。结果在跟骨骨折和踝关节创伤性关节炎评定方面,两个标准存在良好的对应性;在踝关节功能评定方面,除关节强直固定于非功能位的致残率略高于GEPI外,《人体损伤致残程度分级》其他条款与GEPI均具有良好的对应性。而在足弓结构破坏和足趾功能评定方面,两个标准对应性差,《人体损伤致残程度分级》评定的致残率明显高于GEPI。结论通过两个标准下肢足踝评定的比较,可以发现目前《人体损伤致残程度分级》的不足之处,提示在足弓结构破坏和足趾功能评定方面可能存在问题,需要进一步完善。

Objective The article is comparative study about knee impairment of lower extremities on Classification of the impairment related to injury and GEPI to provide advice for Classification of the impairment related to injury. Methods We reviewed the terms and provisions foot and ankle impairment evaluation as follows, clause distribution, the specific evaluation method of the two standards and calculation impairment values between Classifications of the impairment related to injury and GEPI. Results In terms of the evaluation of Calcaneal fractures and ankle joint traumatic arthritis, Classification of the impairment related to injury and GEPI have good correspondence. In terms of ankle function evaluation, two standards have good correspondence except that the impairment rate of the joint is fixed to the non-functional level slightly higher than that of GEPI. In terms of the destruction of arch structure and the function of toe function, the classification of the impairment related to injury is different from GEPI, and the impairment rate of evaluation is significantly higher than that of GEPI. Conclution By comparing two standards about knee impairment of lower extremities,we can discover that the Classification of the impairment related to injury has disadvantages.These disadvantages tip it may be have problems in the arch structure destruction and toes functional assessment to be further improved.