关节镜下单排与双排缝合桥修复技术治疗老年肩袖损伤的对照研究

目的关节镜下采取双排与单排缝合桥修复术治疗老年肩袖损伤的效果对比分析。 方法前瞻性收集简阳市人民医院2016年1月至2018年2月期间收治的118例老年肩袖损伤病患者，按随机数字表法分为对照组（关节镜下行单排锚钉固定）与观察组（关节镜下行双排缝合桥修复术），两组各59例，比较两组不同程度损伤患者手术前后ASES评分、Constant-Murley评分、UCLA评分；并对比两组术后再撕裂发生率。 结果治疗前两组四种撕裂程度Constant-Murley、UCLA、ASES评分差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）；治疗后两组比较，只有轻度撕裂三种评分差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05），而巨大、重度、中度撕裂的三种评分两组间差异均具有统计学意义（P<0.05），观察组显著优于对照组。对照组再撕裂发生率17/59（28.81%）显著高于观察组6/59（10.17%）（χ²=6.535，P=0.011）。 结论老年肩袖损伤采取双排与单排缝合桥术均可行，但双排缝合桥术应用范围较为广泛，且对于患者巨大、重度、中度撕裂改善效果更佳。

Arthroscopic single row and double row suture bridge repair in the treatment of elderly rotator cuff injuries

ObjectiveTo explore the clinical effect of double-row and single-row suture bridge repair for rotator cuff injury in elderly patients. Methods118 patients with rotator cuff injury were randomly divided into control group (single row anchor fixation under arthroscopy) and observation group (double row suture bridge repair under arthroscopy). The ASES score, Constant-Murley score and CLA score before and after operation were compared between the two groups. The incidence of re-tear after surgery between two groups were compared. ResultsThere was no significant difference in the Constant-Murley, UCLA and ASES scores of the four tear degrees before treatment (P>0.05), there was no significant difference in the three scores of mild tear between the two groups after treatment (P>0.05), but there were significant differences in the three scores of large, severe and moderate tear between the two groups (P<0.05). It is better than the control group. The rate of re-tearing in the control group (17 cases) (28.81%) was significantly higher than that in the observation group (6/59) (10.17%) (χ²=6.535, P=0.011). ConclusionBoth double-row and single-row suture bridges are feasible for rotator cuff injury in the elderly, but double-row suture bridges are widely used and can be used to treat huge, severe and moderate tears.