关节镜下Fast-Fix系统与Outside-in缝合法治疗外侧半月板层裂近期疗效对比

Comparison of the Short-Term Efficacy of Arthroscopic Fast-Fix System and Outside-in Suture in the Treatment of Lateral Meniscus Cleft

目的比较关节镜下Fast-Fix系统与Outside-in缝合法修复外侧半月板体部损伤的近期临床疗效。方法对62例外侧半月板损伤患者行关节镜下修复手术,其中30例采用Outside-in缝合法,32例采用FastFix系统缝合法。对两组的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间及IKDC,Lysholm,Tegner膝关节评分等进行比较。结果 62例患者均获得随访。手术时间、术中出血量比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);住院时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后体征两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后膝关节功能两组膝关节评分术前、术后比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);两组之间膝关节术前评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后评分比较,有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论 Fast-Fix缝合法较Outside-in缝合法修复半月板损伤的近期疗好,且操作简便、手术时间短,Fast-Fix缝合法是半月板修复比较安全有效的手术方式。

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of arthroscopic Fast-Fix system and Outside-in suture method to repair the lateral meniscus injury（ The lateral meniscus injury）. Methods Sixty-two cases of lateral meniscus injury were repaired by arthroscopy,of which 30 cases were treated with Outside-in suture,and 32 cases were treated with Fast-Fix suture. The operative time,intraoperative blood loss,hospitalization time,postoperative signs,clinical healing rates and IKDC,Lysholm,Tegner knee scores were compared between the two groups. Results Sixty-two patients were followed up for 12 to 18 months. The operative time and intraoperative blood loss were statistically significant（ P〈0. 01）. Hospitalization time： the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant（ P〉0. 05）. Postoperative signs： the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant（ P〈0. 05）. There was no significant difference in the preoperative score between the two groups（ P〉0. 05）. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant（ P〉0. 05） The postoperative score was statistically significant（ P〈0. 01）. Conclusion Fast-fix suture method is better than outside-in suture repair meniscus injury in the near future effective,and the operation is simple,and the time of operation is short. Fast-Fix suture is a relatively safe and effective way to repair meniscus.