腓骨瓣支撑空心钉固定与腓骨截骨锁定钢板固定行胫距跟关节融合术的疗效比较

doi:10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2022.4.18

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的　比较腓骨瓣支撑联合空心螺钉固定行胫距跟关节融合术与腓骨截骨联合锁定钢板行胫距跟关节融合术的临床疗效。方法　回顾性分析2016年6月~ 2019年6月我院行胫距跟关节融合术的患者87例，41例患者采用腓骨瓣支撑联合空心螺钉固定胫距跟关节融合术（腓骨瓣组），46例采用腓骨截骨联合锁定钢板行胫距跟关节融合术（锁定钢板组），比较两组手术时间、引流量、融合率、美国足踝外科协会（AOFAS）踝-后足评分、视觉模拟评分（VAS）及并发症情况。结果　所有患者顺利完成手术，两组患者手术时间无统计学差异（P>0.05）；术后引流量腓骨瓣组（253.6±34.7）ml，锁定钢板组（212.8± 20.1）ml，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；术后10周融合率腓骨瓣组95.1%（39/41），明显高于锁定钢板组73.9%（34/46），差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；术后6个月融合率，术后12个月AOFAS、VAS评分，差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。所有切口Ⅰ期愈合，锁定钢板组3例患者出现腓骨截骨端激惹表现。结论　应用腓骨瓣支撑或锁定钢板均可实现胫距跟关节融合，腓骨瓣支撑联合空心螺钉固定保留了腓骨的部分血运，可以更快地实现融合，不易引起腓骨截骨端激惹症状，融合后踝关节的外形较优。

关键词: 踝, 终末期关节病；　开放外科踝关节融合术；　腓骨瓣支撑

Abstract: Objective　To compare the clinical efficacy of the trans-fibular approach locking plating versus fibular strut combined with hollow screw for tibial pitch and calcaneal arthrodesis.　Methods　A retrospective study was performed on the 87 patients who had undergone tibial pitch and calcaneal arthrodesis from June 2016 to June 2019 in our department. 41 were treated by fibular strut combined with hollow screw (fibular flap group) and 46 by locking plating (locking plate group). The operation time, drainage volume, fusion rate, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hind foot Scale, visual analogue scale(VAS) and complications were compared between the two groups.　Results　All patients received successful operation. There was no statistical difference in the operation time between the two groups (P>0.05). Postoperative drainage volume of fibular flap group was (253.6±34.7) mL and locking plate group (212.8±20.1) mL, there were statistical differences in the postoperative drainage volume between the two groups (P<0.05). The fusion rate at 10 weeks after operation of the locking plating group was (73.9 %) significantly lower than that of the fibular strut combined with hollow screw group (95.1 %) (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference in the fusion rate at 6 months after operation, AOFAS score, VAS score at 12 months after operation (P>0.05). All incisions were healed in the first stage and the fibula osteotomy site irritation appeared in 3 patients in the locking plate group.　Conclusions　Both open lateral ankle locking plating and fibular strut combined with hollow screw are effective procedure to tibial pitch and calcaneal arthrodesis. The fibular strut combined with hollow screw preserves part of the blood supply of the fibula and can achieve faster fusion. In addition, the irritation symptoms of the fibula osteotomy site is not obvious, and the shape of the ankle joint after fusionalso has advantages.

Key words: Ankle;　End-stage arthrosis, 　Open lateral ankle arthrodesis;　Fibular strut

中图分类号:

R687.4

郑加法, 　李荣俊, 　宋秀锋. 腓骨瓣支撑空心钉固定与腓骨截骨锁定钢板固定行胫距跟关节融合术的疗效比较[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2022, 40(4): 471-475.

Zheng Jiafa, Li Rongjun, Song Xiufeng. Efficacy comparison of fibular strut combined with hollow screw versus via the trans-fibular approach locking plating for tibial pitch and calcaneal arthrodesis [J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy, 2022, 40(4): 471-475.

参考文献

[1] Jehan S, Shakeel M, Bing AJF, et al. The success of tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis with intramedullary nailing-a systematic review of the literature[J]. Acta Orthop Belg, 2011, 77(5): 644-651. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20110826-09.
[2] Hernandez LY, Abad J, Remy S, et al. Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis using a straight intramedullary nail[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2015, 36(5): 539-546. DOI: 10.1177/1071100714565900.
[3] Budnar VM, Hepple S, Harries WG, et al. Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis with a curved, interlocking, intramedullary nail[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2010, 31(12): 1085-1092. DOI: 10.3113/FAI. 2010. 1085.
[4] Mader K, Verheyen CC, Gausepohl T, et al. Minimally invasive ankle arthrodesis with a retrograde locking nail after failed fusion[J]. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr, 2007, 2(1): 39-47. DOI: 10.1007/s11751-007-0018-4.
[5] Taylor J, Lucas DE, Riley A, et al. Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis nails: a comparison of nails with and without internal compression[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2016, 37(3): 294-299. DOI: 10.1177/1071100715611891.
[6] Zhang C, Shi ZM, Mei GH. Locking plate versus retrograde intramedullary nail fixation for tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. A retrospective analysis[J]. Indian J Orthop, 2015, 49(2): 227-232. DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.152492.
[7] 邹运璇, 张宏宁, 沈国栋等. 外踝截骨与关节镜下踝关节融合的疗效观察[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2020, 28(11): 913-917. DOI: 10.3977/j.issn.1005-8478.2020.11.10.
[8] 周文正, 李祖涛, 蔡昱, 等. 锁定型后足融合髓内钉行踝关节融合术治疗终末期踝关节病变的疗效分析[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2019, 34(12): 1327-1329. DOI: 10.7531/j.issn.1672-9935.2019.12.037.
[9] 谢明, 黄若坤, 方真华, 等. Ilizarov支架外固定联合踝关节融合术治疗终末期踝关节炎[J]. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2011, 13(6): 526-529. DOI: 10.7531/j.issn.1672-9935.2017.03.013.
[10] 尚林, 王翔宇, 王爱国, 等. 经腓骨入路倒置肱骨近端锁定接骨板结合空心螺钉行踝关节融合术治疗终末期踝关节炎[J]. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2020, 22(7): 592-597. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20190812-00280.
[11] 张文举, 张宇, 徐善强, 等. 倒置PHILOS钢板联合空心钉治疗重度踝、距下关节骨关节炎临床疗效观察[J]. 宁夏医科大学学报, 2020, 42(12): 1263-1266. DOI: 10.16050/j.cnki.issn1674-6309.2020.12.016.
[12]谢志平, 庄跃宏, 郑和平, 等. 腓血管蒂腓骨嵌合组织瓣设计的解剖学基础[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2014, 32(3): 259-263. DOI: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.201.
[13]Schmid T, Krause F, Penner MJ, et a1. Effect of preoperative deformity on arthroscopic and open ankle fusion outcomes[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2017, 38(12): 1301-1310. DOI: 10.1177/1071100717729491.
[14]罗勇, 游贵武, 樊健. 外侧入路锁定钢板结合内侧螺钉行胫距跟关节融合术的疗效分析[J]. 外科研究与新技术, 2016, 5(3): 176-181. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-378X.2016.03.009.
[15]Akra GA, Middleton A, Adedapo AO, et al. Outcome of ankle arthrodesis using a transfibular approach[J]. Foot Ankle Surg, 2010, 49(6): 508-512. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2010.07.004.