缝合及重建喙锁韧带在锁骨钩钢板治疗肩锁关节脱位中的必要性探讨

：目的：比较肩锁关节脱位LINK钩钢板内固定术中缝合与不缝合喙锁韧带及喙锁韧带重建三种方法治疗肩锁关节脱位的临床疗效。方法 单纯应用肩锁钩内固定治疗肩锁关节脱位29例，应用肩锁钩内固定并同时修复喙锁韧带治疗肩锁关节脱位25例，应用肩锁钩内固定并同时采用改良 Weaver法重建喙锁韧带组均治疗肩锁关节脱位20例，随访12－24月，平均16.5个月，比较三组治疗方法临床疗效的差异。结果 74例病人获得随访，按照Karlsson疗效标准，不韧带缝合组优23例（79.3％），良6例（20.7％）; 缝合喙锁韧带组优20例（80%），良5例（20%）；改良 Weaver法重建喙锁韧带组优16例（80%），良4例（20%）。三组比较无显著性差异 结论 在肩锁关节脱位的钢板内固定治疗中喙锁韧带的缝合或重建不是必要的。

The necessity of suturing and reconstructing coracoclavicular ligament after clavicular hook plate fixation in treating acromioclavicular dislocation

【Abstracts】 Objective To compare the therapeutic effects among suturing coracoclavicular ligament , not suturing coracoclavicular ligament and reconstructing coracoclavicular ligament after clavicular hook plate fixation in treating acromioclavicular dislocation.Methods Suturing coracoclavicular ligament in treating acromioclavicular dislocation was applied in one group of 25 cases and was not applied in the other group of 29 cases.Reconstructing coracoclavicular ligament with coracoacromial ligament was applied in 20 cases.Patients were followed up for 12—24 months with the mean of 16.5 months.The prognosis was compared. Results 74 patients were followed up and evaluated according to Karlsson′s therapeutic effects criteria. In group without ligament suturing, 23 cases were excellent(75.9%) ,6 cases were good; In ligament suturing group,20 cases were excellent,5cases were good;In coracoclavicular ligament reconstructing group ,16cases were exellent,4caese were good.There were no significant differences among these groups. Conclusion Suturing or reconstructing the coracoclavicular ligament after clavicular hook plate fixation in treating acromioclavicular dislocation is not indispensable.