切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华肩肘外科电子杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (04) : 300 -306. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-5790.2022.04.003

论著

TightRope钢板与锁骨钩钢板治疗Rockwood III型急性肩锁关节脱位的疗效比较分析
王雄1, 杨璐1, 子树明1, 魏文强1, 梁志民1, 顾峥嵘1, 曹烈虎1,()   
  1. 1. 201908 上海市宝山区罗店医院骨科
  • 收稿日期:2022-09-15 出版日期:2022-11-05
  • 通信作者: 曹烈虎
  • 基金资助:
    上海市宝山区科学技术委员会立项(21-E-14、21-E-15)

Comparative analysis of the efficacy of TightRope plate versus clavicular hook plate in the treatment of acute Rockwood typeⅢ acromioclavicular joint dislocation

Xiong Wang1, Lu Yang1, Shuming Zi1, Wenqiang Wei1, Zhimin Liang1, Zhengrong Gu1, Liehu Cao1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Baoshan Luodian Hospital, Baoshan District, Shanghai 201908, China
  • Received:2022-09-15 Published:2022-11-05
  • Corresponding author: Liehu Cao
引用本文:

王雄, 杨璐, 子树明, 魏文强, 梁志民, 顾峥嵘, 曹烈虎. TightRope钢板与锁骨钩钢板治疗Rockwood III型急性肩锁关节脱位的疗效比较分析[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2022, 10(04): 300-306.

Xiong Wang, Lu Yang, Shuming Zi, Wenqiang Wei, Zhimin Liang, Zhengrong Gu, Liehu Cao. Comparative analysis of the efficacy of TightRope plate versus clavicular hook plate in the treatment of acute Rockwood typeⅢ acromioclavicular joint dislocation[J]. Chinese Journal of Shoulder and Elbow(Electronic Edition), 2022, 10(04): 300-306.

目的

比较TightRope钢板与锁骨钩钢板治疗Rockwood III型急性肩锁关节脱位的预后疗效。

方法

选择2016年1月至2020年3月上海市宝山区罗店医院收治的急性肩锁关节脱位患者60例,根据手术选择的内固定类型分为TightRope钢板组(n=24)和锁骨钩钢板组(n=36)。观察比较两组患者手术相关指标的变化,包括手术时间、切口长度、术中失血量、住院时间、恢复正常工作时间。比较两组患者术前和术后的视觉模拟评分(visual analogue score, VAS)和肩关节Constant-Murley评分的变化情况。选择Karlsson标准评估患者术后临床预后疗效。比较两组患者术后并发症的发生情况。

结果

TightRope钢板组手术时间长于锁骨钩钢板组(P<0.05)。TightRope钢板组与锁骨钩钢板组相比,手术切口长度小、术中失血量少、住院时间短、恢复工作时间短(P<0.05)。手术前两组患者的VAS评分、Constant-Murely评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05) 。手术后第1天、6个月、12个月两组患者的VAS评分均较手术前明显下降,并且TightRope钢板组VAS评分明显低于锁骨钩钢板组(P<0.05)。手术后6个月、12个月两组患者的Constant-Murely评分较术前明显升高,并且TightRope钢板组的Constant-Murely评分高于锁骨钩钢板组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。根据Karlsson标准评估,TightRope钢板组优良率为91.7%,锁骨钩钢板组为86.1%。锁骨钩钢板组的并发症发生率为16.7%,高于TightRope钢板组的8.3%。

结论

TightRope钢板和锁骨钩钢板治疗Rockwood III型急性肩锁关节脱位患者术后肩关节功能均可得到有效恢复。锁骨钩钢板组手术时间短,而TightRope钢板组手术切口小、住院时间短、术中出血量少、术后并发症和疼痛评分均较低,并且无需二次手术取出内固定,更早返回工作岗位。

Background

With the change and diversification of life, sports, and transportation methods, acromioclavicular joint dislocation is increasing yearly, accounting for about 9% of shoulder injuries. Dislocations of the acromioclavicular joint have been associated with damage to the acromioclavicular capsule, the acromioclavicular ligament, and the coracoclavicular ligament. It manifests as "step-like" displacement of the distal clavicle, shoulder pain, limited abduction, lifting activities, and decreased muscle strength. The Rockwood classification is divided into six types according to the degree of ligament damage and imaging findings. Among them, type I and type II choose conservative treatment, type IV-VI choose surgical treatment, and type Ⅲ is still controversial. Studies have found that acromioclavicular joint dislocation typeⅢ and above are often accompanied by instability of the acromioclavicular joint, affecting the shoulder joint's movement function. Reconstruction of the coracoclavicular ligament and restoration of stability of the acromioclavicular joint contribute to the recovery of shoulder motion, improved quality of life, and early return to work. Currently, common surgical methods for acromioclavicular joint dislocation include clavicle hook plate, Kirschner wire tension band, TightRope plate, acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction, etc. A clavicle hook plate is currently the most commonly used method for the dislocation of the acromioclavicular joint, which can provide a rigid internal fixation effect. Still, there are many postoperative complications, such as limited shoulder joint movement, pain, acromial dissolution, subacromial impingement, secondary Surgical removal of internal fixation, etc. TightRope plate is a new technology with less trauma, fewer postoperative complications, a good prognosis, and no need for secondary surgery to remove internal fixation. There are few clinical analyses on the prognosis and efficacy of TightRope plate and clavicle hook plate in the treatment of Rockwood typeⅢ acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

Objective

To compare the efficacy of TightRope plate versus clavicular hook plate in treating acute Rockwood typeⅢ acromioclavicular joint dislocation.

Methods

From January 2016 to March 2020, 60 patients with acute Rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint dislocation were admitted to our hospital. According to the types of plate utilized in the surgery, the patients were selected and divided into two groups, the TightRope plate group (n=24) and the clavicular hook plate group (n=36) . The characteristic of surgery with two groups was collected and compared, including the operation time, the incision length, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative hospitalization time, and recovery time. Before and after the operation, the pain in the shoulder joint was assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) , and the function of the shoulder joint was evaluated by Constant-Murley scores. Karlsson's criteria evaluated the clinical effect of patients twelve months after the operation. The incidence rates of postoperative complications were also collected.

Results

The operation time in the TightRope plate group was longer than that in the clavicular hook plate group (P<0.05) . The incision length was shorter than the clavicular hook plate group, and intraoperative bleeding volume was lesser. The postoperative hospitalization and recovery time were faster in the TightRope plate group (P<0.05) . There was no significant difference in VAS scores and Constant-Murley scores between the two groups before the operation (P>0.05) . The VAS scores of the patients in the two groups on the first day, six months, and twelve months after the operation were significantly lower than that before the operation, and the VAS score of the TightRope plate group was lower (P<0.05) . The Constant-Murley score in the two groups at six months and twelve months after the operation was significantly higher than before, and the Constant-Murley score of the TightRope plate group was higher (P<0.05) . The fineness rate in the TightRope plate and clavicular hook plate groups was 91.7% and 86.1%, respectively. The incidence of postoperative complications in the clavicular hook plate group was 16.7%, and in the TightRope plate group was 8.3%.

Conclusion

TightRope plate and clavicular hook plate can effectively restore shoulder function in patients with acute Rockwood type III acromioclavicular joint dislocation. The clavicular hook plate had a short operative time. The TightRope plate had a shorter incision length, lower intraoperative bleeding volume, shorter postoperative hospitalization time, lower postoperative VAS score, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, the TightRope plate group without need secondary surgery to remove the internal fixation and return to work earlier.

表1 两组患者手术相关指标比较(±s)
表2 两组患者术前和术后的VAS、肩关节Constant-Murely评分比较(±s)
图1 患者,男,35岁,跌倒致右肩锁关节脱位,采用TightRope钢板固定治疗 图A:术前X线片提示右肩锁关节脱位,Rockwood III型;图B:术后6周X线片提示右肩锁关节复位维持良好,无松动,无锁骨或喙突骨折;图C-D:肩锁关节脱位术后肩关节功能恢复良好
图2 患者,女,45岁,跌倒致左肩锁关节脱位,采用锁骨钩钢板内固定治疗 图A:术前X线片提示左肩锁关节脱位,Rockwood III型;图B:术后6个月左肩关节复位维持良好,无钢板断裂;图C:患者术后13个月因肩关节运动受限伴疼痛不适,取出锁骨钩钢板后症状明显缓解
表3 两组患者术后并发症发生情况
[1]
Sirin E, Aydin N, Mert Topkar O. Acromioclavicular joint injuries: diagnosis, classification and ligamentoplasty procedures [J]. EFORT Open Rev,2018, 3(7):426-433.
[2]
Wang G, Xie R, Mao T, et al. Treatment of AC dislocation by reconstructing CC and AC ligaments with allogenic tendons compared with hook plates[J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2018, 13(1):175.
[3]
Oki S, Matsumura N, Iwamoto W, et al. The function of the acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular ligaments in shoulder motion: a whole-cadaver study [J]. Am J Sports Med, 2012, 40(11):2617-2626.
[4]
Gstettner C, Tauber M, Hitzl W, et al. Rockwood type III acromioclavicular dislocation: surgical versus conservative treatment [J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2008, 17(2):220-225.
[5]
Verstift DE, Welsink CL, Spaans AJ, et al. Return to sport after surgical treatment for high-grade (Rockwood III-VI) acromioclavicular dislocation [J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc,2019, 27(12):3803-3812.
[6]
Tauber M. Management of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations: current concepts [J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg,2013, 133(7):985-995.
[7]
Cai L, Wang T, Lu D, et al. Comparison of the Tight Rope Technique and Clavicular Hook Plate for the Treatment of Rockwood Type III Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation [J]. J Invest Surg, 2018, 31(3):226-233.
[8]
葛喆,张新潮. 肩锁关节脱位的手术治疗进展[J/CD]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2017, 5(4):308-312.
[9]
Kumar N, Sharma V. Hook plate fixation for acute acromioclavicular dislocations without coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction: a functional outcome study in military personnel [J]. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr,2015,10:79-85.
[10]
Balke M, Schneider MM, Akoto R, et al. Diagnostik, Therapie und Entwicklungen der letzten 10 Jahre [Acute acromioclavicular joint injuries. Changes in diagnosis and therapy over the last 10 years] [J]. Unfallchirurg,2015, 118(10):851-857.
[11]
Kienast B, Thietje R, Queitsch C, et al. Mid-term results after operative treatment of rockwood grade III-V acromioclavicular joint dislocations with an AC-hook-plate [J]. Eur J Med Res, 2011, 16(2):52-56.
[12]
Chiang CL, Yang SW, Tsai MY, et al. Acromion osteolysis and fracture after hook plate fixation for acromioclavicular joint dislocation: a case report [J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg,2010, 19(4):e13-e15.
[13]
Lin HY, Wong PK, Ho WP, et al. Clavicular hook plate may induce subacromial shoulder impingement and rotator cuff lesion--dynamic sonographic evaluation[J]. J Orthop Surg Res, 2014, 6:6.
[14]
Kraus N, Hann C, Minkus M, et al. Primary versus revision arthroscopically assisted acromio-and coracoclavicular stabilization of chronic AC-joint instability[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg,2019, 139(8):1101-1109.
[15]
Ladermann A, Grosclaude M, Lubbeke A, et al. Acromioclavicular and coracoclavicular cerclage reconstruction for acute acromioclavicular joint dislocations [J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg,2011,20:401-408.
[16]
Qi W, Xu Y, Yan Z, et al. The Tight-Rope Technique versus Clavicular Hook Plate for Treatment of Acute Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. J Invest Surg,2021, 34(1):20-29.
[17]
Darabos N, Vlahovic I, Gusic N, et al. Is AC TightRope fixation better than Bosworth screw fixation for minimally invasive operative treatment of Rockwood III AC joint injury? [J]. Injury,2015, 46 (Suppl 6):S113-S118.
[18]
Vascellari A, Schiavetti S, Battistella G, et al. Clinical and radiological results after coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction for type III acromioclavicular joint dislocation using three different techniques. A retrospective study [J]. Joints,2015, 3(2):54-61.
[19]
Sallakh SA. Evaluation of arthroscopic stabilization of acute acromioclavicular joint dislocation using the TightRope system [J]. Orthopedics,2012, 35(1):e18-e22.
[20]
Nie S, Lan M. Comparison of clinical efficacy between arthroscopically assisted Tight-Rope technique and clavicular hook plate fixation in treating acute high-grade acromioclavicular joint separations[J]. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong),2021,29(2): 23094990211010562.
[21]
Beitzel K, Obopilwe E, Chowaniec DM, et al. Biomechanical comparison of arthroscopic repairs for acromioclavicular joint instability: suture button systems without biological augmentation[J]. Am J Sports Med,2011,39:2218-2225.
[22]
Jensen G, Katthagen JC, Alvarado LE, et al. Has the arthroscopically assisted reduction of acute AC joint separations with the double tight-rope technique advantages over the clavicular hook plate fixation? [J].Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc,2014, 22(2): 422-430.
[23]
Motta P, Maderni A, Bruno L, et al. Suture rupture in acromioclavicular joint dislocations treated with flip buttons [J]. Arthroscopy,2011,27:294-298.
[24]
Woodmass JM, Esposito JG, Ono Y, et al. Complications following arthroscopic fixation of acromioclavicular separations: a systematic review of the literature [J]. Open Access J Sports Med,2015,6:97-107.
[25]
Walz L, Salzmann GM, Fabbro T, et al. The anatomic reconstruction of acromioclavicular joint dislocations using 2 TightRope devices: a biomechanical study[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2008,36:2398-2406.
[1] 庞嘉越成, 巨淑慧, 马冀青, 李恒宇, 盛湲. 乳腺癌易感基因突变人群接受降低乳腺癌风险手术的研究进展[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 179-183.
[2] 古丽米拉·亚森江, 阿依努尔·艾尔肯, 李佳隆, 郭强, 蒋铁民, 吐尔干艾力·阿吉. 胆囊切除术后胆管损伤不同治疗方式的疗效分析[J]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 262-266.
[3] 张晓贝, 曹栋, 杨宝顺, 俞永江. 肝硬化腹水合并腹股沟疝的临床治疗进展[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(02): 121-124.
[4] 崔壮, 魏宽海, 陈滨, 胡岩君, 余斌. Rockwood III型肩锁关节脱位治疗策略[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(03): 279-283.
[5] 刘有才, 张义君, 赵欣磊, 周家玄. Endobutton带袢钛板与钩钢板治疗肩锁关节脱位病例的疗效比较[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(03): 212-217.
[6] 赵佳音, 张晓萌, 张艳, 李立, 王瑞灯. 创伤后肘关节僵硬的病理机制及治疗进展[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(02): 181-185.
[7] 张涛, 崔进, 周启荣, 陈晓, 苏佳灿. 肩锁关节脱位的治疗进展[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(01): 77-82.
[8] 郝壮, 马济远, 何梦梅, 李兴育, 陆新婷, 武静, 周健. 迟发性囊袋阻滞综合征临床特征、治疗方法及其疗效的临床研究[J]. 中华眼科医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(02): 70-75.
[9] 钟东. 大脑凸面脑膜瘤的个体化全程管理[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(04): 193-198.
[10] 廖环, 徐蛟天, 张海涛, 邱光庭, 蒋成昊, 陈进, 邹景芳, 张志文. 颈椎管内外节细胞神经瘤一例报道及文献复习[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(03): 186-189.
[11] 朱敏, 李法强. CD64指数联合降钙素原、白介素-6、血清淀粉样蛋白A检测对重型颅脑损伤术后颅内细菌感染的诊断价值[J]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(01): 26-31.
[12] 刘家伦, 郑占乐. 跟骨载距突解剖与临床应用现状[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2023, 09(03): 188-192.
[13] 马四海, 杨剑, 马显武, 张敏, 吕明礼, 李启菊, 杨轶声, 刘海生. Shamblin Ⅱ型颈动脉体瘤的诊疗及文献综述[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 467-470.
[14] 江凯乐, 杨异. 肋骨骨折的手术治疗进展及存在问题[J]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2023, 10(03): 149-152.
[15] 王新桥, 马超英, 张旭光. 纵隔单中心型Castleman病诊治体会及文献复习[J]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2023, 10(03): 183-187.
阅读次数
全文


摘要