套管定位针刀微创治疗弹响指的疗效观察

目的 :探讨套管定位针刀微创治疗弹响指的临床疗效。方法 :回顾性分析2010年9月至2014年3月采用自制的套管定位针刀微创治疗弹响指患者133例(145指),男37例(40指),女96例(105指);年龄18~71岁,平均51.8岁;病程1~19个月,平均8.2个月;拇指82指,示指12指,中指11指,环指36指,小指4指。根据Quinnell分级标准:Ⅲ级42指,Ⅳ级92指,Ⅴ级11指。术中先将套管凹槽卡入肥厚腱鞘的远侧,再向近侧沿肌腱走行方向以小针刀铲割松解。观察创口愈合情况、有无指血管神经损伤和术后6个月患指疼痛及屈伸功能。结果:手术时间8~25 min,平均9.8 min。145患指均无创口红肿、渗液,无指血管神经损伤等不良反应发生。133例患者均获随访,时间6~26个月,平均12.5个月。术后6个月复查按照Quinnell分级标准,优123指,良15指,差7指。结论:套管定位针刀微创治疗弹响指是一种创伤小、安全简单、疗效可靠的好方法,值得临床推广。     

微创术治疗指屈肌腱狭窄性腱鞘炎98例

指屈肌腱狭窄性腱鞘炎,又名“弹响指”,传统治疗以局部封闭、理疗为主,但疗效欠佳,常规的手术治疗创伤大,术后易引起再粘连,影响疗效。因此,自1992年以来,我们采用自制的微针刀治疗此病98例,112个患指,损伤极小,疗效颇佳,现报导如下。     

空心螺钉内固定治疗肱骨远端冠状面骨折

目的探讨采用切开复位空心螺钉内固定治疗肱骨远端冠状面骨折的疗效。方法自2004年3月～2011年1月采用经后外侧入路空心螺钉内固定治疗肱骨远端冠状面骨折27例。结果本组获随访8～20个月,平均15个月。骨折平均愈合时间为7.5周,无骨化性肌炎及肱骨小头缺血性坏死发生。术后Broberg-Morrey评分平均93.4分,优15例,良11例,可1例,优良率96.3%。结论经后外侧入路空心螺钉内固定具有操作简便、解剖复位、固定牢固、允许早期功能锻炼等优点,是治疗肱骨远端冠状面骨折的理想术式。     

经跗骨窦小切口空心钉内固定治疗跟骨骨折疗效分析

[目的]比较经跗骨窦小切口空心钉内固定与外侧"L"形切口钢板内固定治疗跟骨骨折的临床效果。[方法]选取本院骨科2013年1月~2015年3月收治的跟骨骨折患者150例,根据手术方法不同分为小切口空心钉组和"L"形切口钢板组各75例,小切口空心钉组行经跗骨窦小切口空心钉内固定术,"L"形切口钢板组行外侧"L"形切口钢板内固定术。回顾性分析患者的临床资料,比较两组的手术一般资料、骨折愈合时间、术后并发症、术后即刻影像学参数以及术后1年Maryfand评分情况。[结果]小切口空心钉组手术时间、术中出血量以及术后住院时间均明显低于"L"形切口钢板组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者的骨折愈合时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。小切口空心钉组术后并发症发生率为9.3%,"L"形切口钢板组为20.00%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组术后即刻Bohler角、Gissane角及跟骨中部宽度差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后1年时小切口空心钉组Maryfand评分及优良率均高于"L"形切口钢板组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。[结论]与外侧"L"形切口钢板内固定治疗跟骨骨折相比,经跗骨窦小切口空心钉术后恢复效果更佳,且具有微创、手术简便以及周围组织创伤小等优势,符合现代骨科微创治疗的理念。     

经皮微创钢板内固定治疗胫骨干远端1/3骨折

目的：探讨经皮微创钢板内固定治疗胫骨干远端1/3骨折的临床效果。方法自2011年4月至2013年4月,对29例胫骨干远端1/3骨折患者,采用经皮微创植入锁定加压钢板内固定治疗,评估术中情况、骨折愈合情况、手术前后Johner-Wruh评分、术后患者满意度,以及不良反应发生情况等。结果29例患者均获得有效随访,平均随访时间（11.2±0.8）个月。平均手术时间为（70.7±12.5） min,平均术中出血量为（157.3±16.4） mL;患者X线平均愈合时间为（14.7±2.6）周,平均完全负重时间为（15.2±3.1）周;患者治疗后Johner-Wruh评分显著上升（P〈0.05）;术后平均满意度评分为（93.4±2.1）分;随访发现1例不良反应。结论经皮微创钢板内固定手术是治疗胫骨干远端1/3骨折的有效方法。     

U形切口双钢板固定治疗股骨远端C3.3型骨折

目的探讨U形切口双钢板固定治疗股骨远端C3.3型骨折的可行性及临床疗效。方法 2006年7月-2009年2月,收治股骨远端C3.3型骨折11例。男7例,女4例;年龄27～55岁,平均43岁。车祸伤8例,高处坠落伤3例。左侧6例,右侧5例。开放骨折5例,闭合骨折6例。受伤至入院时间30min～7d。入院予骨牵引3～8d后行U形切口双钢板固定术,同时取自体髂骨或异体骨植骨治疗。结果手术时间105～150min,平均128min;术中出血量290～380mL,平均344mL。术后1周2例出现局部皮缘浅层坏死,经对症处理后愈合;其余切口均Ⅰ期愈合。患者均获随访,随访时间12～36个月,平均22个月。X线片复查示骨折于术后3～6个月愈合,平均4.4个月。末次随访时按Merchan等疗效评定标准进行膝关节功能评定:优4例,良5例,可1例,差1例,优良率为81.8%。结论采用U形切口双钢板固定治疗具有术野显露清晰、手术操作简便、骨折解剖复位及固定牢靠等优点,是治疗股骨远端C3.3型骨折的有效方法之一,但应严格掌握手术指征及操作规程。     

胫骨远端解剖型钢板内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折

[目的]探讨解剖型钢板治疗胫骨远端骨折的手术方法和临床疗效。[方法]本院自2003年1月～2006年1月应用解剖型钢板治疗胫骨远端骨折65例，29例患者应用胫骨远端内侧解剖钢板固定，其余的36例患者应用胫骨远端外侧解剖钢板固定，术中微创操作。根据AO分型：A型13例，B型37例，C型15例。[结果]术后随访8～36个月（平均18个月），疗效评定标准采用Mazur等制定的踝关节症状与功能评分系统：优35例，良25例，可3例，差2例。术后所有患者获得骨性愈合，愈合时间为9～15周（平均11．5周）。[结论]选择合适的手术时间和术中微创操作，应用塑型良好的胫骨远端内、外侧解剖型钢板治疗胫骨远端骨折，手术操作相对容易，内固定钢板符合胫骨远端解剖特点，内固定牢固，可以获得良好临床疗效。     

胫骨远端解剖型钢板内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折

[目的]探讨解剖型钢板治疗胫骨远端骨折的手术方法和临床疗效。[方法]本院自2003年1月～2007年1月应用解剖型钢板治疗胫骨远端骨折65例，29例患者应用胫骨远端内侧解剖钢板固定，其余的36例患者应用胫骨远端外侧解剖钢板固定，术中微创操作。根据AO分型：A型13例，B型37例，C型15例。[结果]术后随访8～36个月（平均18个月），疗效评定标准采用Mazur等制定的踝关节症状与功能评分系统：优35例，良25例，可3例，差2例。术后所有患者获得骨性愈合，愈合时间为9～15周（平均11．5周）。[结论]选择合适的手术时间和术中微创操作，应用塑型良好的胫骨远端内、外侧解剖型钢板治疗胫骨远端骨折，手术操作相对容易，内固定钢板符合胫骨远端解剖特点，内固定牢固，可以获得良好临床疗效。     

胫骨远端解剖锁定钢板治疗复杂Pilon骨折

目的 探讨胫骨远端“L”型解剖锁定钢板治疗复杂Pilon骨折的临床疗效及手术技巧.方法 对17例复杂Pilon骨折行骨折切开复位、胫骨远端“L”型解剖锁定钢板内固定、植骨术.结果 术后15例切口一期愈合,2例出现2mm的切口边缘坏死,经换药后愈合.本组随访8～18个月,平均15.5个月.骨折愈合时间14～20周,平均1...     

微创内固定系统结合拉力螺钉在股骨远端复杂骨折中的应用

背景:股骨远端复杂骨折是创伤骨科治疗的难点,微创内固定系统(LISS)与传统内固定方法治疗股骨远端复杂骨折的报道比较普遍,但LISS结合拉力螺钉治疗股骨远复杂骨折的报道鲜见。目的:探讨应用LISS结合拉力螺钉治疗33C2和33C3型股骨远端复杂骨折的疗效与影响因素。方法:2005年8月至2010年12月应用LISS治疗20例股骨远端骨折,男11例,女9例;年龄28～60岁,平均44岁;33C2型8例、33C3型12例;交通伤10例,高处坠落伤8例,压砸伤2例;闭合性骨折18例,开放性骨折2例均为GustiloⅡA型。受伤至手术时间3～12d,平均7.5d,均采用髌骨旁外侧切口,应用LISS结合松质骨、空心螺钉或皮质骨螺钉复位固定骨折。结果:全部获得随访,随访时间为12～25个月,平均18.5个月。所有患者切口均一期愈合。放射学愈合时间12～35周,平均22周;完全负重时间12～24周,平均18周。1例出现骨延迟愈合,最终达骨性愈合;无一例发生浅部及深部感染、内固定松动、脱出及断裂,术中无植骨。术后根据Rasmussen骨折复位标准评分:评分为12～19分,平均17.6分,其中优10例,良9例,可1例,优良率为90%。按照Merchant膝关节功能评分:优12例,良6例,可2例,优良率为90%。结论:LISS系统设计符合生物学固定原理,体现微创原则,结合使用拉力螺钉(松质骨、空心螺钉或皮质骨螺钉)治疗股骨远端复杂骨折,手术操作相对简单。     

Outcome of percutaneous trigger finger release technique using a 20-gauge hypodermic needle

BackgroundTrigger finger or stenosing tenosynovitis is a disproportion between the volume of the tendon sheath and its contents. This disproportion prevents gliding of the tendon as it moves freely through the annular pulley. The technique of percutaneous release of the annular pulley for trigger finger has been described well in the literature, which has undergone several modifications, like use of hypodermic needle, tenotome or specially designed knives.MethodWe performed percutaneous trigger finger release using a 20-gauge hypodermic needle to know the outcome and efficacy of the technique post release. A Prospective cohort study was conducted in 80 consecutive trigger fingers of 67 patients who were treated by percutaneous release using 20-gauge hypodermic needle. Quinell’s grading system was used to quantify severity of triggering and pain was assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after the procedure. Patients were evaluated based on these two parameters at timely interval and final outcome was assessed at the end of one year.ResultsOut of 80 digits treated, most of the subjects were in the age group 40–50 years (39.07%). Most common grade of trigger finger observed was Grade 3 (60%) followed by Grade 4 (30%) with VAS score of 8 (46%) followed by VAS score of 7 (24%) before release. At a year follow-up 95% of patients improved to grade 0 and mean VAS score was 0.44. Three patients developed scar tenderness, which gradually subsided by analgesics and physiotherapy with no other major complications.ConclusionOur technique of percutaneous release of trigger digit with 20 G needle is effective and can be performed safely with ease. It is cost efficient and has a short learning curve with great acceptance being an outpatient procedure.     

The Safety of Percutaneous Trigger Finger Release

This study attempted to determine the safety of percutaneous release of trigger fingers, with particular attention given to border digits and the thumb. We performed percutaneous release of the A1 pulley in six fresh frozen cadaveric hands utilizing established surface landmarks. After freezing all specimens, we performed cross-sections at the A1 pulley, avoiding dissection of soft tissues, which could alter the natural position of the digital nerves. There was no difference in the distance from the needle tract to the neurovascular bundle when comparing between digits, and the closest distance was 2.7 mm. There was no significant difference between the needle tract and the radial and ulnar digital nerves. Based on our findings, percutaneous trigger finger release can safely be performed on all digits, including the thumb, small fingers, and index fingers.     

Ultrasound-Assisted Percutaneous Trigger Finger Release: Is it Safe?

Trigger fingers can be treated by open or percutaneous division of the A1 pulley. The open approach allows for visualization of the pulley, the tendon, and the adjacent neurovascular bundles. The percutaneous trigger finger release (PTFR) lacks an incision and is thought to lead to a quicker recovery, but the safety and efficacy of this blind procedure are often questioned. Ultrasound imaging has recently been introduced as an adjunct for guiding the needle during percutaneous trigger finger release. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of needle trigger finger release with added ultrasound imaging. Eighteen fresh cadaver A1 pulleys were divided percutaneously and then evaluated by converting to an open technique and examining the pulleys, the tendons, and the neurovascular bundles. This study's ultrasound images demonstrated repeated puncture of the tendon sheath and of the neurovascular bundle during PTFR. The subsequent dissection revealed three out of 18 tendons with visible lacerations and 15 out of 18 A1 pulleys with incomplete division. We concluded that ultrasound-guided PTFR can be complicated by flexor tendon lacerations, potential injury to neurovascular bundles, and incomplete division of the A1 pulleys. While the clinical significance of these findings is unclear to us, it does raise questions regarding the safety and efficacy of percutaneous trigger finger release, even when adding ultrasound guidance.     

Percutaneous trigger finger release: a comparison of a new push knife and a 19-gauge needle in a cadaveric model.

An instrument was developed for percutaneous release of the A1 pulley and this procedure was compared with percutaneous release using a 19-gauge needle in 20 fresh-frozen cadaver hands. This instrument was developed to avoid the complications of incomplete release and flexor tendon damage previously reported with percutaneous release using a 19-gauge needle. Seventy-eight fingers were used in the study. The push knife was used to release 52 fingers. The A1 pulley was completely released in 51 fingers (98%) and there were no incidents of flexor tendon damage. A 19-gauge needle was used to release 26 fingers. The A1 pulley was completely released in only 10 fingers (38%) and the flexor tendon was damaged in 19 (73%). In cadaveric hands, this instrument proved to be more effective at creating a complete release of the A1 pulley and demonstrated less disruption of the flexor tendon surface compared with current needle techniques.     

Percutaneous treatment of trigger finger: 34 fingers followed 0.5-2 years

We performed percutaneous A1 pulley release on 34 trigger fingers in 30 patients with an angiocath needle. Complete release was achieved in all fingers.

There were no complications and no recurrences during mean 0.5 (1-2) years follow-up.     

Percutaneous release of trigger digits

We describe a safe and easy percutaneous technique for release of trigger finger using a specially designed knife. The A1 pulley is sectioned by a blade which has a hooked end. We released, percutaneously, 185 trigger fingers, including 62 which were locked using this technique. Satisfactory results were achieved in 173 (93.5%). There were no significant complications. We recommend this as a safe and effective outpatient procedure for those patients who have not responded successfully to conservative treatment, have longstanding symptoms or severe triggering.     

Open versus percutaneous release of the A1-pulley for stenosing tendovaginitis: a prospective randomized trial

A prospective randomized trial for release of the first annular pulley (A-1 pulley) in trigger fingers with a percutaneous technique versus the open surgical technique is presented. Thirty-six patients were randomized to either open (n = 16) or percutaneous (#15 blade; n = 20) release of the A-1 pulley. All patients were evaluated for grip strength, active range of motion of the proximal interphalangeal joint, and residual pain at 1 and 12 weeks after release. Furthermore, the operation time was assessed, and the costs were calculated. Overall, 100% success in terms of grip strength, active range of motion of the proximal interphalangeal joint, and residual pain was obtained in both groups. Mean operation time was significantly longer with the open technique. Because of lower costs and quicker procedure with equal functional outcome when compared with open surgery, we recommend the percutaneous technique using a #15 blade for trigger finger release.     

Percutaneous trigger finger release]

Results of percutaneous release of the trigger finger in 18 patients (5 males and 13 females), 23-67 years old are presented. All in all, 26 fingers were operated, 10 of them was the thumb. The distribution of fingers following Quinnel was: grade I--4; grade II--12; grade III--7 and grade IV--3. The follow-up period was 6 months. The patients were operated in the office under local anesthesia with the technique described by Eastwood. Two patients required reoperation due to early recurrence of triggering. No complications were noted. In 92% of fingers complete recovery was achieved. Slight limitation of flexion persisted in two thumbs. The pain was relieved and all patients were satisfied with the procedure. The method is effective, safe and easily accepted by the patients.     

能这样治疗狭窄性腱鞘炎吗?

目的 探讨目前文献介绍的小针刀治疗狭窄性腱鞘炎的操作方法是否正确.方法 查阅近年来有关小针刀治疗扳机指文献报道中的具体操作过程,是否符合屈指肌腱和腱鞘的解剖及扳机指的病理特点.结果 介绍小针刀治疗扳机指的操作方法多数有误,也不符合扳机指的病理特征和临床解剖学规律.结论 目前文献所介绍的小针刀治疗扳机指的操作方法有造成潜在性伤害的可能.     

Transdermal anaesthesia for percutaneous trigger finger release.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of transdermal anaesthesia using eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine (EMLA) in patients undergoing percutaneous trigger finger release and to compare it with lidocaine infiltration. In this prospective, randomised study percutaneous release of the A1 annular pulley was performed to treat stenosing tenosynovitis (trigger finger syndrome) in 50 patients (50 fingers). The procedure was performed either under transdermal anaesthesia using EMLA applied transcutaneously 120 minutes prior to the operation (Group A, n = 25) or using local infiltration anaesthesia using lidocaine (Group B, n = 25). Pain experienced during administration of anaesthesia and during the operation was assessed using a 10-point Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAPS), while all patients rated the effectiveness of anaesthesia with a 5-point scale. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the VAPS during the operation (1.33 +/- 0.52 versus 1.59 +/- 0.87) and the satisfaction scores (4.6 +/- 0.2 versus 4.4 +/- 0.3). The VAPS score during the administration of anaesthesia was statistically significantly less in the EMLA group (0 versus 5.96 +/- 2.41). All patients were satisfied with the final result of the operation. Percutaneous trigger finger release can be performed as an office procedure with the use of EMLA avoiding the use of injectable local infiltration anaesthesia.