全踝关节镜下距腓前韧带一期修复术治疗新鲜外踝撕脱骨折

doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-7041.2019.02.007

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (1132 KB) HTML (2 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的探讨全踝关节镜下距腓前韧带一期修复术治疗新鲜外踝撕脱骨折的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2016年1月—2017年3月徐州市中心医院手足显微外科全踝关节镜下治疗的36例36足新鲜外踝撕脱骨折患者的临床资料。其中男22例、女14例,年龄18～57(29.24±10.37)岁;右侧20例,左侧16例。患者均采用全踝关节镜下距腓前韧带带线锚钉一期修复治疗,术后定期门诊随访,观察踝关节外观、踝关节稳定性及行走步态等;末次随访采用视觉模拟评分(VAS)、美国骨科足踝外科协会(AOFAS)评分及足踝部Olerud-Molander评分对手术治疗效果进行评价。患者术前VAS为5～8(6.35±1.17)分,AOFAS评分为60～85(74.67±8.36)分,Olerud-Molander评分为57～80(68.89±10.70)分。结果所有患者手术切口一期愈合,无一例出现神经、血管、肌腱损伤等并发症。36例患者获得随访,随访时间12～25(14.63±6.80)个月。末次随访时,患侧踝关节外观恢复满意,无感觉过敏现象及瘢痕触痛,踝关节恢复正常活动,无关节痛及关节不稳情况,均恢复正常行走步态;末次随访时VAS、AOFAS及Olerud-Molander评分分别为(0.31±0.14)、(90.40±9.62)、(88.71±7.38)分,与术前比较差异均有统计学意义(t=30.755、7.405、9.149,P值均＜0.05)。结论采用全踝关节镜下一期修复距腓前韧带,具有安全可靠、疗效确切、创伤小等优点,是新鲜外踝撕脱骨折的有效治疗方法。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	冯仕明
	王爱国
	郝云甲
	张在轶
	常步青
	毛艺生

关键词 ：踝损伤, 外侧韧带,踝, 距腓前韧带, 外科手术,关节镜, 外踝骨折

Abstract：Objective To investigate the therapeutic efficacy of treating fresh lateral malleolus avulsion fracture by using the all ankle arthroscope for anterior talofibular ligament repairing.Methods From January 2016 to March 2017, 36 patients (36 ankles) of fresh lateral malleolus avulsion fracture were retrospectively followed in Xuzhou Central Hospital. There were 22 males and 14 females, aged from 18 to 57 years with a median of (29.24±10.37) years. Among them, the right and the left sides were involved in 20 and 16 cases, respectively. All the patients were treated by using the all ankle arthroscopy technique combined with anchor fixation for anterior talofibular ligament repairing. The appearance of the ankle, the stability of the ankle joint and the walking gait were observed after the operation. The effect of the operation was evaluated by visual analogue scale(VAS), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society(AOFAS) and Olerud-Molander scores at the last follow-up. The preoperative VAS, AOFAS and Olerud-Molander scores were 5-8(6.35±1.17), 60-85(74.67±8.36) and 57-80(68.89±10.70), respectively.Results The incision healed by first intention, without evidence of postoperative complications of nerve, vessel and tendon injury. Thirty-six patients were successfully followed up for 12 to 25 months (average 14.6±6.80 months). At the final follow-up, no case reported skin hyperalgesia or scar tenderness, the perfect skin appearance, normal ankle function and normal walking gait were regained in all the cases without ankle pain and bearing walking pain. At the final follow up, the scores of the VAS, AOFAS, and Olerud-Molander were(0.31±0.14),(90.40±9.62) and (88.71±7.38),which were statistically different from those before surgery (t=30.755, 7.405 and 9.149, all P values＜0.05).Conclusions Treatment of anterior talofibular ligament injury with all ankle arthroscopy procedure has the advantages of safety, reliability, effectiveness and small trauma. It is an effective method for the treatment for the avulsion fracture of the lateral malleolus of the anterior talofibular ligament.

Key words： Ankle injuries Lateral ligament, ankle Anterior talofibular ligament Surgical procedures, arthroscopic Lateral malleolus fracture

收稿日期: 2018-10-29

基金资助:江苏省青年医学人才项目(QNRC2016393);徐州市重点研发计划项目(KC18180)

通讯作者: 冯仕明,Email: fengshiming_04@163.com

引用本文:

冯仕明,王爱国,郝云甲,张在轶,常步青,毛艺生. 全踝关节镜下距腓前韧带一期修复术治疗新鲜外踝撕脱骨折[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2019, 24(2): 123-128.
Feng Shiming, Wang Aiguo, Hao Yunjia, Zhang Zaiyi, Chang Buqing, Mao Yisheng. Treatment of the fresh lateral malleolus avulsion fracture by using the all ankle arthroscope for anterior talofibular ligament repairing. Chinese Journal of Anatomy and Clinics, 2019, 24(2): 123-128.

链接本文:

http://www.cjac.com.cn/CN/10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-7041.2019.02.007 或 http://www.cjac.com.cn/CN/Y2019/V24/I2/123

[1]	Miklovic TM, Donovan L, Protzuk OA, et al. Acute lateral ankle sprain to chronic ankle instability: a pathway of dysfunction[J]. Phys Sportsmed, 2018, 46(1): 116-122. DOI:10.1080/00913847.2018.1409604.
[2]	Mailuhu AKE, Oei EHG, van Putte-Katier N, et al. Clinical and radiological predictors for persistent complaints five years after a lateral ankle sprain: a long-term follow-up study in primary care[J]. J Sci Med Sport, 2018, 21(3): 250-256. DOI:10.1016/j.jsams.2017.07.005.
[3]	Khawaji B, Soames R. The anterior talofibular ligament: a detailed morphological study[J]. Foot (Edinb), 2015, 25(3): 141-147. DOI:10.1016/j.foot.2015.05.004.
[4]	Takao M, Matsui K, Stone JW, et al. Arthroscopic anterior talofibular ligament repair for lateral instability of the ankle[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2016, 24(4): 1003-1006. DOI:10.1007/s00167-015-3638-0.
[5]	Li H, Hua Y, Li H, et al. Activity level and function 2 years after anterior talofibular ligament repair: a comparison between arthroscopic repair and open repair procedures[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2017, 45(9): 2044-2051. DOI:10.1177/0363546517698675.
[6]	孙官军, 叶永杰, 银毅, 等. 关节镜手术在顽固性跟痛症治疗中的应用[J]. 中华解剖与临床杂志, 2018, 23(3): 245-250. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-7041.2018.03.014.
[7]	周云烽, 陈娜, 张正政, 等. 踝关节镜下距腓前韧带联合跟腓韧带解剖重建治疗慢性踝关节不稳[J]. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2018, 20(2): 123-128. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-7600.2018.02.006.
[8]	Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, et al. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 1997, 18(3): 187-188. DOI:10.1177/107110079701800315.
[9]	Olerud C, Molander H. A scoring scale for symptom evaluation after ankle fracture[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 1984, 103(3): 190-194.
[10]	Yld z S, Yalcn B. The anterior talofibular and calcaneofibular ligaments: an anatomic study[J]. Surg Radiol Anat, 2013, 35(6): 511-516. DOI:10.1007/s00276-012-1071-3.
[11]	Arroyo-Hernández M, Mellado-Romero M, Páramo-Díaz P, et al. Chronic ankle instability: arthroscopic anatomical repair[J]. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol, 2017, 61(2): 104-110. DOI:10.1016/j.recot.2016.10.003.
[12]	Yasui Y, Shimozono Y, Kennedy JG. Surgical procedures for chronic lateral ankle instability[J]. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2018, 26(7): 223-230. DOI:10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00623.
[13]	Willegger M, Benca E, Hirtler L, et al. Biomechanical stability of tape augmentation for anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) repair compared to the native ATFL[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2016, 24(4): 1015-1021. DOI:10.1007/s00167-016-4048-7.
[14]	Song B, Li C, Chen N, et al. All-arthroscopic anatomical reconstruction of anterior talofibular ligament using semitendinosus autografts[J]. Int Orthop, 2017, 41(5): 975-982. DOI:10.1007/s00264-017-3410-9.
[15]	Matheny LM, Johnson NS, Liechti DJ, et al. Activity level and function after lateral ankle ligament repair versus reconstruction[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2016, 44(5): 1301-1308. DOI:10.1177/0363546515627817.
[16]	Matsui K, Takao M, Tochigi Y, et al. Anatomy of anterior talofibular ligament and calcaneofibular ligament for minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2017, 25(6): 1892-1902. DOI:10.1007/s00167-016-4194-y.
[17]	Schuh R, Benca E, Willegger M, et al. Comparison of Brostr m technique, suture anchor repair, and tape augmentation for reconstruction of the anterior talofibular ligament[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2016, 24(4): 1101-1107. DOI:10.1007/s00167-015-3631-7.
[18]	Choi HJ, Kim DW, Park JS. Modified brostr m procedure using distal fibular periosteal flap augmentation vs anatomic reconstruction using a free tendon allograft in patients who are not candidates for standard repair[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2017, 38(11): 1207-1214. DOI:10.1177/1071100717726303.
[19]	Cottom JM, Rigby RB. The “all inside” arthroscopic Brostr m procedure: a prospective study of 40 consecutive patients[J]. J Foot Ankle Surg, 2013, 52(5): 568-574. DOI:10.1053/j.jfas.2013.02.022.
[20]	Vega J, Guelfi M, Malagelada F, et al. Arthroscopic all-inside anterior talofibular ligament repair through a three-portal and no-ankle-distraction technique[J]. JBJS Essent Surg Tech, 2018, 8(3): e25. DOI:10.2106/jbjs.st.18.00026.