《中国期刊全文数据库》收录期刊
《中国核心期刊（遴选）数据库》收录期刊
《中文科技期刊数据库》收录期刊
外科研究与新技术（中英文）

外科研究与新技术（中英文） ›› 2025, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (2): 122-125.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-378X.2025.02.005

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

关节镜下肩袖损伤合并肱二头肌长头腱断裂不同固定方式的疗效对比分析

王复超1, 赵延清1, 张燕2, 夏德涛3, 朱军1, 夏海1, 孙英华1   

  1. 1.山东第二医科大学附属益都中心医院关节创伤骨科, 山东 潍坊 262500;
    2.山东省青州市人民医院骨外科, 山东 潍坊 262500;
    3.山东第二医科大学外科学教研室, 山东 潍坊 261000
  • 收稿日期:2025-01-03 出版日期:2025-06-28 发布日期:2025-07-07
  • 通讯作者: 孙英华,电子信箱：qzydsyh@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    潍坊市卫生健康委员会科研项目（WFWSJK-2022-023）; 潍坊医学院附属医院科技发展项目（2023FYM044）

Comparative analysis of different fixation methods for rotator cuff injury combined with rupture of long head biceps tendon under arthroscopy

WANG Fuchao1, ZHAO Yanqing1, ZHANG Yan2, XIA Detao3, ZHU Jun1, XIA Hai1, SUN Yinghua1   

  1. 1. Department of Orthopedics for Joint Trauma, Yidu Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang 262500, Shandong, China;
    2. Department of Orthopedics, Qingzhou People's Hospital of Shandong Province, Weifang 262500, Shandong, China;
    3. Department of Surgery, Shandong Second Medical University, Weifang 261000, Shandong, China
  • Received:2025-01-03 Online:2025-06-28 Published:2025-07-07

PDF (PC)

75

摘要： 目的 探讨挤压螺钉固定和带线锚钉捆扎固定两种固定方法在关节镜下治疗肩袖损伤合并肱二头肌长头腱（LHBT）断裂的疗效。方法 选取2021年11月—2023年11月接受挤压螺钉固定治疗的75例肩袖损伤合并LHBT断裂患者作为螺钉组,选取同期接受带线锚钉捆扎固定治疗的75例肩袖损伤合并LHBT断裂患者作为锚钉组,对两组患者临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果 术前两组患者视觉模拟评分法（VAS）、美国加州大学肩关节评分系统（UCLA）评分、美国肩肘协会评分系统（ASES）评分、肩关节活动度比较,差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）;两组患者术后各时间点（3、6、12个月）VAS、UCLA、ASES评分及肩关节活动度均显著高于术前（P<0.05）。术后3个月及术后6个月,螺钉组VAS评分显著低于锚钉组（P<0.05）;术后12个月,两组间VAS评分比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。术后各时间点,两组UCLA、ASES评分及肩关节活动度比较,差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。螺钉组并发症发生率显著高于锚钉组（P<0.05）;两组再手术率比较,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论 两种固定方式均具有较好的治疗效果,挤压螺钉固定能够更好地控制术后早期患者疼痛情况,带线锚钉捆扎固定能有效降低术后并发症的发生,故临床应依据具体情况择优而选。

关键词: 肩袖损伤, 肱二头肌长头腱断裂, 关节镜, 挤压螺钉固定, 带线锚钉捆扎固定

Abstract: Objective To compare the effects of compression screw fixation versus wire-anchored strapping fixation on rotator cuff injury combined with rupture of long head biceps tendon （LHBT） under arthroscopy. Methods In this study, 75 patients with rotator cuff injury complicated with LHBT rupture who received compression screw fixation from November 2021 to November 2023 were selected as the screw group, and another 75 patients with rotator cuff injury complicated with LHBT rupture who received wire anchor binding and fixation at the same time period were selected as the anchor group. The clinical data of the two groups were retrospectively analyzed. Results There were no significant differences in visual analog scale （VAS） scores, University of California at Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale （UCLA） scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon’s Form （ASES） scores, and shoulder joint motion between the two groups before surgery （P>0.05）. The VAS, UCLA, and ASES scores and shoulder joint motion between the two groups at all time points （3, 6, and 12 months） were significantly higher than those before surgery （P<0.05）. The VAS scores of the screw group at 3 months and 6 months after surgery were significantly lower than those of the anchor group （P<0.05）, and there was no significant difference in VAS score between the two groups at 12 months after surgery （P>0.05）. There were no significant differences in UCLA and ASES scores and shoulder joint motion between the two groups at each time point after surgery （P>0.05）. The complication rate of the screw group was significantly higher than that of the anchor group （P<0.05）, and there was no significant difference in reoperation rate between the two groups （P>0.05）. Conclusion Both fixation methods have good therapeutic effects. Compression screw fixation can better control the early postoperative pain of patients, and wire anchor binding and fixation can effectively reduce the occurrence of postoperative complications, so the clinical selection should be based on the specific situation.

Key words: Rotator cuff injury, Rupture of long head biceps tendon, Arthroscopy, Compression screw fixation, Wire anchor binding and fixation

中图分类号: