摘要目的 对肘关节松解术时通常采用的后正中入路和内外侧联合入路两种手术切口进行回顾性比较分析.方法自2009年1月至12月由同一小组治疗且获得完整随防的肘关节僵硬患者共41例,采用后正中入路患者21例,男15例,女6例;平均35.8岁(16～70岁);僵硬程度:极重度12例,重度7例,中度2例;8例有尺神经症状.采用内外侧联合入路患者20例,男8例,女12例;平均38.8岁(16～51岁);僵硬程度:极重度11例,重度7例,中度2例;5例有尺神经症状.比较两组患者的松解效果和并发症发生情况.结果 41例患者获得4～15个月(平均7.9个月)随访.采用后正中入路的患者肘关节平均屈伸术前为27.6°±25.7°,术后为111.4°±25.6°;平均旋转术前为152.9°±46.9°,术后为168.1°±19.1°;Mayo肘关节功能评分(MEPS)术前为(65.5±11.5)分,术后为(95.7±6.4)分.内外侧联合入路患者平均屈伸术前为35.5°±25.0°,术后为1 16.5°±19.1°;平均旋转术前为138.0°±55.7°,术后为148.5°±45.6°;MEPS评分术前平均为(66.3±13.0)分,术后为(97.3±7.0)分.两组患者术后肘关节活动度和MEPS评分均较术前有明显改善,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);但两组患者手术前、后肘关节活动度及MEPS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).采用后正中入路的21例患者中有5例肘后方形成巨大血肿,有3例肘后伤口裂开,余患者均有轻度的血肿形成.而采用内外侧联合入路的患者中,无一例出现伤口并发症.结论 在肘关节松解术中尽量采用内外侧联合入路,可避免后正中入路时伤口的并发症.

abstractsObjective To compare the posterior midline approach and the combined lateral and medial approach usually used in elbow arthrolysis. Methods From January to December in 2009, 41 cases of elbow stiffness were treated and fully followed up by the same team in our hospital. The posterior midline approach was used in 21 cases, 15 males and 6 females, with an average age of 35.8 years (16 to 70 years). In this group, the total flexion-extension arc was ＜ 30° in 12 cases, 31° to 60° in 7 cases, and 61° to 90° in 2 cases. Eight cases had ulnar symptoms. The combined lateral and medial approach was applied in 20 cases, 8 males and 12 females, with an average age of 38. 8 years (16 to 51 years). In this group, the total flexion-extension arc was ＜ 30° in 11 cases, 31° to 60° in 7 cases, and 61° to 90° in 2 cases. Five cases had ulnar symptoms. Results The 41 cases were followed up for 4 to 15 months (average, 7.9 months). In the posterior approach group, the mean preoperative flexion-extension ROM (27.6°± 25.7°) was improved to the postoperative 111.4°± 25.6°, the mean preoperative rotation ROM ( 152.9°± 46. 9°) to the postoperative 168.1°± 19. 1°, and the mean preoperative MEPS score (65.5 ± 11.5) to the postoperative 95.7 ±6.4. In the combined approach group, the mean flexion-extension ROM was improved from 35.5°± 25.0° preoperatively to 116. 5°± 19.1° postoperatively, the mean rotation ROM from 138.0°±55.7° preoperatively to 148.5°± 45.6° postoperatively, and the mean MEPS score from 66. 3 ± 13.0 preoperatively to 97.3 ± 7.0 postoperatively. The differences were statistically significant between preoperation and postoperation in both groups ( P ＜ 0. 05), but not statistically different between the 2 groups in the preoperative or postoperative values ( P ＞ 0. 05). In the posterior approach group, 5 patients had huge hematoma, 3 had wound dehiscence at the posterior elbow, and the others all had mild hematoma. But in the combined approach group, no wound complications were noted. Conclusion The combined lateral and medial approach should be used as far as possible in the elbow arthrolysis to avoid the likely complications when the posterior midline approach is used.