专题笔谈:慢性踝关节不稳
慢性踝关节不稳的争议问题
中华医学杂志, 2021,101(37) : 2934-2939. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20210507-01084
摘要

慢性踝关节不稳是踝关节初次内翻扭伤后出现的以反复扭伤、感觉不稳、疼痛、肿胀等症状为特点的慢性运动损伤性疾病。对于慢性踝关节不稳的病理机制研究仍然无法解释疾病表现的多样性。慢性踝关节不稳的手术指征既往仅强调机械性关节松弛,但外踝扭伤后出现慢性症状前来就诊的患者,多数可能并没有典型的机械性不稳的主诉,更多的患者是以迁延不愈的疼痛或功能性不稳为主诉的。手术治疗对功能性不稳症状也有一定效果,但功能性不稳的手术指征主要依据主观症状,目前缺乏客观指标,仍有争议。需要进一步深入进行慢性踝关节不稳的机制研究,从而指导诊疗策略的制定。

引用本文: 马昕. 慢性踝关节不稳的争议问题 [J] . 中华医学杂志, 2021, 101(37) : 2934-2939. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20210507-01084.
参考文献导出:   Endnote    NoteExpress    RefWorks    NoteFirst    医学文献王
扫  描  看  全  文

正文
作者信息
基金 0  关键词  0
English Abstract
评论
阅读 0  评论  0
相关资源
引用 | 论文 | 视频
以下内容版权所有,任何个人和机构未经授权不得转载、复制和发布,违者必究。

慢性踝关节不稳是踝关节初次内翻扭伤后出现的以反复扭伤、感觉不稳、疼痛、肿胀等症状为特点的慢性运动损伤性疾病。这是一种常见的慢性运动损伤,给社会造成了较大的医疗负担1。近年对慢性踝关节不稳的研究逐渐深入,但对慢性踝关节不稳的发病机制、诊断标准、治疗方法仍存在许多争议问题。

一、慢性踝关节不稳的机制

慢性踝关节不稳的病因常被认为是扭伤导致的外踝韧带损伤,主要是距腓前韧带伴或不伴跟腓韧带的损伤2。一般认为慢性踝关节不稳的机制可以分为韧带损伤导致的机械性不稳和扭伤后生物力学功能失调导致的功能性不稳两方面。2002年Hertel3将功能性踝关节不稳的病理机制总结为:本体感觉障碍、神经肌肉控制障碍、姿势平衡控制障碍、肌力下降等;而将机械性踝关节不稳的病理机制总结为:关节松弛、关节运动异常、滑膜病变、退行性变等;2019年他们进一步将慢性踝关节不稳的病理机制分为机械性异常、感觉性异常、运动性异常三大类别4。慢性踝关节不稳的病理机制研究经历了从注重局部损伤到整体功能异常的转变,对视觉代偿5、神经认知异常6等慢性踝关节不稳中枢机制有了初步研究。不同病理机制对疾病症状影响的程度也存在争议,一项研究报道了踝关节背伸角度、内外方向平衡功能、内翻角度、扭伤次数等变量可解释患者主观功能评分60%的变异7,但其他病理异常对慢性踝关节不稳症状的定量影响仍有争议。

二、功能性不稳与机械性不稳的诊断

随着研究的深入,慢性踝关节不稳的功能性不稳与机械性不稳愈加难以完全区分。早期有研究报道了机械性踝关节不稳患者的运动功能失调8,近期也出现大量研究报道了功能性踝关节不稳的韧带机械性损伤9、关节运动异常10, 11等。目前倾向于将功能性、机械性等不同特点的踝关节不稳统一归类于慢性踝关节不稳这一概念之下。

在2016年的专家共识中,慢性踝关节不稳的诊断标准强调了扭伤史、不稳定症状、整体运动功能受限等方面12。这一共识的争议性在于,对于功能性不稳的特点有较好的总结,但功能性不稳的判定依赖量表较为主观,同时基本忽略了机械性不稳的因素。这与临床外科诊治强调韧带损伤的客观影像学证据,注重机械稳定性重建,有一定区别。运用更高精度的动态检测方法,有助于发现功能性踝关节不稳的机械性不稳因素1013,这提示我们可在诊断标准中应用此类方法,确定慢性踝关节不稳的机械性不稳诊断标准。

慢性踝关节不稳内涵的扩大使得这一疾病在诊断标准上十分模糊。对于慢性踝关节不稳的病理机制研究仍然无法解释疾病表现的多样性,许多不同症状特点的踝关节慢性运动损伤性疾病都被归类到慢性踝关节不稳中。如距骨骨软骨损伤、前踝撞击、下胫腓联合损伤、跗骨窦综合征等,这类疾病与慢性踝关节不稳同样可以表现为反复扭伤病史、疼痛、肿胀、感觉不稳等症状,如何将其与慢性踝关节不稳区分开来,缺乏达成共识的标准。其中尤其需要注意的是要将踝关节不稳与距下关节不稳或跗骨窦综合征鉴别开来。因为踝关节内翻扭伤造成的跟腓韧带损伤,同样会影响距下关节的正常生物力学状态14

三、距下关节不稳的机制

跟腓韧带的解剖走行跨过了踝关节与距下关节,作为踝关节扭伤中常见的损伤结构之一,跟腓韧带的损伤对踝关节与距下关节的关节运动均有一定影响,对限制距下关节过度内翻尤为重要14, 15, 16, 17。跟腓韧带常常与下伸肌支持带、骨间韧带、颈韧带的功能产生协同作用,共同维持距下关节的稳定1416, 17, 18, 19。距下关节不稳的患者查体通常发现距下关节内外翻活动度增加、跗骨窦区域压痛。与慢性踝关节不稳相比,治疗上需要注意对距下关节、跗骨窦区域的探查清理,同时使用伸肌支持带加强缝合等手术方式重建距下关节的稳定性。

四、慢性踝关节不稳的保守治疗与手术治疗选择

慢性踝关节不稳作为一种慢性的运动损伤,多数专家倾向于在手术治疗前采用3~6个月的规范保守治疗20, 21。保守治疗的方法,如护踝支具、弹性绷带、康复锻炼等,都表现出了治疗作用,但治疗的频率和时程没有统一的标准,且不同治疗方法的叠加没有显著的增益22, 23, 24, 25

一般来说,以机械性不稳为主要表现的慢性踝关节不稳更倾向于尽早手术治疗,而以功能性踝不稳为主要表现的慢性踝关节不稳更倾向于延长保守治疗的时间20。目前仍没有研究对比不同术前保守治疗时长的获益,仅有专家共识给出了3~6个月的经验性建议21。需要用何种指标判定保守治疗无效而转为手术治疗,目前无统一的标准。

慢性踝关节不稳的手术指征既往仅强调机械性关节松弛,但外踝扭伤后出现慢性症状前来就诊的患者,多数可能并没有典型的机械性不稳、“打软腿”等主诉,更多的患者是以迁延不愈的疼痛或功能性不稳为主诉的26。这类患者在临床上以保守治疗为主,手术治疗对功能性不稳症状也有一定效果9,但功能性不稳的手术指征主要依据主观症状,目前缺乏客观指标,仍有争议。部分患者主诉踝关节不稳定与跗骨窦区域压痛,此类患者在进行踝关节不稳治疗的同时对距下关节进行处理可以取得较好的疗效27

五、手术治疗对功能性踝关节不稳的作用

许多研究报道了手术治疗对踝关节机械稳定性的重建28,术后关节运动也出现了显著变化29,但需要警惕手术修复或重建后踝关节过于僵硬的风险30。不同于机械性不稳,疼痛是许多功能性踝关节不稳患者的主诉,有研究认为疼痛程度与主观不稳感觉有相关性。对于没有显著关节松弛的功能性踝关节不稳,手术治疗具有一定争议,手术对关节滑膜的清理和对韧带的修复可能通过影响踝周本体感觉而对功能性不稳起到作用。一些研究报道了术后肌力、平衡功能等功能性因素的改善31, 32, 33, 34,但也有研究认为术后功能性不稳定因素无明显好转35。整体来说,慢性踝关节不稳术后患者主观功能评分有较大提升,多数手术方式术后美国足踝外科协会(AOFAS)评分可以达到约90分36, 37。少量的术后残余症状可能需要术后康复进一步进行治疗。

六、韧带修复与韧带重建的选择

早在1930年代,很多学者提出用腓骨长短肌腱来代替外踝韧带的非解剖韧带重建术式,非解剖重建影响踝关节运动,增大踝关节炎的风险,因此近年已经比较少见36。Broström首先报道了直接缝合距腓前韧带和跟腓韧带的Broström术式。1980年,Gould对这种手术方式进行了改良,在直接缝合距腓前韧带和跟腓韧带的基础上,把下伸肌支持带缝合到腓骨骨膜上,进一步加强外踝稳定,这种手术方式被称为改良Broström-Gould术式,也是目前手术治疗的金标准。解剖重建手术方式与韧带修复术式在生物力学上无显著差异38, 39,但对于特殊情况的患者,解剖重建手术可以带来更好的稳定性,一般认为解剖重建的指征是:体重过大、专业运动员、全身关节松弛、修复术后失败翻修、韧带残端质量较差等情况,但随着部分研究的报道,全身关节松弛、修复术后失败翻修、韧带残端质量较差等情况也并非改良Broström-Gould术式的绝对禁忌,扩大了改良Broström-Gould术式的指征40, 41, 42, 43。目前主流的趋势是改良Broström-Gould术式及类似术式应用范围越来越广泛。目前主流观点仍主张首选韧带修复手术,一期重建的争议相对较大。

七、微创化手术的趋势

随着对手术微创化和快速康复的追求,目前关节镜下手术治疗越来越常见44。关节镜下手术不仅减少了手术的创伤,而且可以同时处理其他关节内病变。通过解剖研究发现,关节镜下修复外踝韧带与开放手术可以达到相同的生物力学强度45。荟萃分析表明关节镜下修复术后AOFAS评分更高,Karlsson评分和并发症两者无显著差异46。关节镜下手术通过较小的创伤,达到了相近甚至更好的效果,已逐渐成为目前慢性踝关节不稳治疗的主流手术方式44。开放手术在慢性踝关节不稳合并特定区域的距骨骨软骨损伤时仍有一定优势。有研究表明,如果需要关节镜检作为一种检查手段,同期行镜下手术治疗预后更好,不建议关节镜检后二期手术治疗47

八、韧带修复手术对跟腓韧带/下伸肌支持带的处理

韧带修复手术目前具有争议的是三种主流的手术方式孰优孰劣:Broström术式48、改良Broström-Gould术式、单纯下伸肌支持带加强的术式49。从目前的临床及生物力学研究结果来看,这三种术式的效果未见明显差别2850。而对于韧带修复中,是单纯缝合距腓前韧带,还是需要缝合距腓前韧带以及跟腓韧带,也存在争议。有研究报道单纯缝合距腓前韧带术式简便,且能达到与缝合距腓前韧带以及跟腓韧带相同的生物力学强度51, 52,但也有研究认为跟腓韧带是手术重建生物力学稳定性中更关键的部分53。根据目前解剖研究的进展,距腓前韧带及跟腓韧带腓骨尖止点具有连续移行的纤维结构,单纯下伸肌支持带加强的术式可以形成与距腓前韧带及跟腓韧带相似的稳定结构,应该是一种简便且可靠的手术治疗方式54

九、慢性踝关节不稳的术后康复策略争议

早期的慢性踝关节不稳的术后康复策略包括了较长的石膏制动时间,近年的研究逐渐提出术后早期、甚至即刻负重的观点,目前很多学者建议,若全镜下修补,第2天即可在保护下负重行走55, 56,对术后的快速康复有了更高的要求。一般来说,建议术后2周内制动非负重57。合并距骨骨软骨损伤同期处理的慢性踝关节不稳患者,文献报道中的术后非负重时间从术后即刻、术后2周至术后12周不等58, 59, 60, 61。笔者推荐采用术后6周非负重的康复策略。对慢性踝关节不稳术后回归运动时间的研究指出,平均的回归运动时间为1.9个月,但大多数恢复到竞技水平需要长达半年的康复62, 63

慢性踝关节不稳因病理机制的复杂性,造成了诊治流程中较多的争议问题。以往研究较多地从临床角度出发,对病理机制的研究有局限性,对以外踝疼痛为主诉的功能性不稳认识尤其缺乏。各种不同治疗方式的对比难以体现出临床显著差异。根据专家经验性共识,目前对于慢性踝关节不稳的诊断标准、保守治疗方式、手术治疗方式、术后康复策略有一定的指导性意见。这提示需要进一步深入进行机制研究,从而指导诊疗策略的制定。

利益冲突
利益冲突

作者声明不存在利益冲突

参考文献
[1]
HupperetsMD, VerhagenEA, HeymansMW, et al. Potential savings of a program to prevent ankle sprain recurrence: economic evaluation of a randomized controlled trial[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2010, 38(11):2194-2200. DOI: 10.1177/0363546510373470.
[2]
van Putte-KatierN, van OchtenJM, van MiddelkoopM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities after lateral ankle trauma in injured and contralateral ankles[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2015, 84(12):2586-2592. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.09.028.
[3]
HertelJ. Functional anatomy, pathomechanics, and pathophysiology of lateral ankle instability[J]. J Athl Train, 2002, 37(4):364-375.
[4]
HertelJ, CorbettRO. An updated model of chronic ankle instability[J]. J Athl Train, 2019, 54(6):572-588. DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-344-18.
[5]
SongK, BurcalCJ, HertelJ, et al. Increased visual use in chronic ankle instability: a meta-analysis[J]. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2016, 48(10):2046-2056. DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000992.
[6]
RosenAB, McGrathML, MaerlenderAL. Males with chronic ankle instability demonstrate deficits in neurocognitive function compared to control and copers[J]. Res Sports Med, 2021, 29(2):116-128. DOI: 10.1080/15438627.2020.1723099.
[7]
RosenA, KoJ, BrownC. A multivariate assessment of clinical contributions to the severity of perceived dysfunction measured by the cumberland ankle instability tool[J]. Int J Sports Med, 2016, 37(14):1154-1158. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-113464.
[8]
GehringD, FaschianK, LauberB, et al. Mechanical instability destabilises the ankle joint directly in the ankle-sprain mechanism[J]. Br J Sports Med, 2014, 48(5):377-382. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092626.
[9]
TakaoM, InnamiK, MatsushitaT, et al. Arthroscopic and magnetic resonance image appearance and reconstruction of the anterior talofibular ligament in cases of apparent functional ankle instability[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2008, 36(8):1542-1547. DOI: 10.1177/0363546508315537.
[10]
CaoS, WangC, ZhangG, et al. In vivo kinematics of functional ankle instability patients during the stance phase of walking[J]. Gait Posture, 2019, 73:262-268. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.07.377.
[11]
CaoS, WangC, MaX, et al. In vivo kinematics of functional ankle instability patients and lateral ankle sprain copers during stair descent[J]. J Orthop Res, 2019, 37(8):1860-1867. DOI: 10.1002/jor.24303.
[12]
GribblePA, DelahuntE, BleakleyC, et al. Selection criteria for patients with chronic ankle instability in controlled research: a position statement of the International Ankle Consortium[J]. Br J Sports Med, 2014, 48(13):1014-1018. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093175.
[13]
CroyT, SalibaSA, SalibaE, et al. Differences in lateral ankle laxity measured via stress ultrasonography in individuals with chronic ankle instability, ankle sprain copers, and healthy individuals[J]. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2012, 42(7):593-600. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2012.3923.
[14]
ChoisneJ, HochMC, AlexanderI, et al. Effect of direct ligament repair and tenodesis reconstruction on simulated subtalar joint instability[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2017, 38(3):324-330. DOI: 10.1177/1071100716674997.
[15]
PellegriniMJ, GlissonRR, WurmM, et al. Systematic quantification of stabilizing effects of subtalar joint soft-tissue constraints in a novel cadaveric model[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2016, 98(10):842-848. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00948.
[16]
ChoisneJ, HochMC, BawabS, et al. The effects of a semi-rigid ankle brace on a simulated isolated subtalar joint instability[J]. J Orthop Res, 2013, 31(12):1869-1875. DOI: 10.1002/jor.22468.
[17]
KamiyaT, KuraH, SuzukiD, et al. Mechanical stability of the subtalar joint after lateral ligament sectioning and ankle brace application: a biomechanical experimental study[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2009, 37(12):2451-2458. DOI: 10.1177/0363546509339578.
[18]
WeindelS, SchmidtR, RammeltS, et al. Subtalar instability: a biomechanical cadaver study[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2010, 130(3):313-319. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-008-0743-2.
[19]
RinglebSI, DhakalA, AndersonCD, et al. Effects of lateral ligament sectioning on the stability of the ankle and subtalar joint[J]. J Orthop Res, 2011, 29(10):1459-1464. DOI: 10.1002/jor.21407.
[20]
MichelsF, PereiraH, CalderJ, et al. Searching for consensus in the approach to patients with chronic lateral ankle instability: ask the expert[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2018, 26(7):2095-2102. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-017-4556-0.
[21]
CamachoLD, RowardZT, DengY, et al. Surgical management of lateral ankle instability in athletes[J]. J Athl Train, 2019, 54(6):639-649. DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-348-18.
[22]
WrightCJ, LinensSW, CainMS. A randomized controlled trial comparing rehabilitation efficacy in chronic ankle instability[J]. J Sport Rehabil, 2017, 26(4):238-249. DOI: 10.1123/jsr.2015-0189.
[23]
PowdenCJ, HochJM, JamaliBE, et al. A 4-week multimodal intervention for individuals with chronic ankle instability: examination of disease-oriented and patient-oriented outcomes[J]. J Athl Train, 2019, 54(4):384-396. DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-344-17.
[24]
BleakleyCM, TaylorJB, DischiaviSL, et al. Rehabilitation exercises reduce reinjury post ankle sprain, but the content and parameters of an optimal exercise program have yet to be established: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2019, 100(7):1367-1375. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.10.005.
[25]
FuerstP, GollhoferA, WenningM, et al. People with chronic ankle instability benefit from brace application in highly dynamic change of direction movements[J]. J Foot Ankle Res, 2021, 14(1):13. DOI: 10.1186/s13047-021-00452-0.
[26]
AdalSA, MackeyM, PourkazemiF, et al. The relationship between pain and associated characteristics of chronic ankle instability: a retrospective study[J]. J Sport Health Sci, 2020, 9(1):96-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.009.
[27]
LiSK, SongYJ, LiH, et al. Arthroscopic treatment combined with the ankle stabilization procedure is effective for sinus tarsi syndrome in patients with chronic ankle instability[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2018, 26(10):3135-3139. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-017-4813-2.
[28]
BehrensSB, DrakosM, LeeBJ, et al. Biomechanical analysis of Broström versus Broström-Gould lateral ankle instability repairs[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2013, 34(4):587-592. DOI: 10.1177/1071100713477622.
[29]
WainrightWB, SpritzerCE, LeeJY, et al. The effect of modified Broström-Gould repair for lateral ankle instability on in vivo tibiotalar kinematics[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2012, 40(9):2099-2104. DOI: 10.1177/0363546512454840.
[30]
PriskVR, ImhauserCW, O′LoughlinPF, et al. Lateral ligament repair and reconstruction restore neither contact mechanics of the ankle joint nor motion patterns of the hindfoot[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2010, 92(14):2375-2386. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00869.
[31]
ChoBK, ParkJK, ChoiSM, et al. The effect of peroneal muscle strength on functional outcomes after the modified Broström procedure for chronic ankle instability[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2018, 39(1):105-112. DOI: 10.1177/1071100717735838.
[32]
ChoBK, HongSH, JeonJH. Effect of lateral ligament augmentation using suture-tape on functional ankle instability[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2019, 40(4):447-456. DOI: 10.1177/1071100718818554.
[33]
LeeJH, LeeSH, JungHW, et al. Modified Broström procedure in patients with chronic ankle instability is superior to conservative treatment in terms of muscle endurance and postural stability[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2020, 28(1):93-99. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-019-05582-4.
[34]
LiHY, ZhengJJ, ZhangJ, et al. The improvement of postural control in patients with mechanical ankle instability after lateral ankle ligaments reconstruction[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2016, 24(4):1081-1085. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3660-2.
[35]
LiHY, ZhengJJ, ZhangJ, et al. The effect of lateral ankle ligament repair in muscle reaction time in patients with mechanical ankle instability[J]. Int J Sports Med, 2015, 36(12):1027-1032. DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1550046.
[36]
NoaillesT, LopesR, PadiolleauG, et al. Non-anatomical or direct anatomical repair of chronic lateral instability of the ankle: a systematic review of the literature after at least 10 years of follow-up[J]. Foot Ankle Surg, 2018, 24(2):80-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2016.10.005.
[37]
LiH, SongY, LiH, et al. Outcomes after anatomic lateral ankle ligament reconstruction using allograft tendon for chronic ankle instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Foot Ankle Surg, 2020, 59(1):117-124. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2019.07.008.
[38]
ViensNA, WijdicksCA, CampbellKJ, et al. Anterior talofibular ligament ruptures, part 1: biomechanical comparison of augmented Broström repair techniques with the intact anterior talofibular ligament[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2014, 42(2):405-411. DOI: 10.1177/0363546513510141.
[39]
ClantonTO, ViensNA, CampbellKJ, et al. Anterior talofibular ligament ruptures, part 2: biomechanical comparison of anterior talofibular ligament reconstruction using semitendinosus allografts with the intact ligament[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2014, 42(2):412-416. DOI: 10.1177/0363546513509963.
[40]
YeoED, ParkJY, KimJH, et al. Comparison of outcomes in patients with generalized ligamentous laxity and without generalized laxity in the arthroscopic modified Broström operation for chronic lateral ankle instability[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2017, 38(12):1318-1323. DOI: 10.1177/1071100717730336.
[41]
HuangB, KimYT, KimJU, et al. Modified Broström procedure for chronic ankle instability with generalized joint hypermobility[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2016, 44(4):1011-1016. DOI: 10.1177/0363546515623029.
[42]
ChoiHJ, KimDW, ParkJS. Modified Broström procedure using distal fibular periosteal flap augmentation vs anatomic reconstruction using a free tendon allograft in patients who are not candidates for standard repair[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2017, 38(11):1207-1214. DOI: 10.1177/1071100717726303.
[43]
赵峰, 胡跃林, 江东, . 改良Karlsson手术治疗陈旧性跟腓韧带损伤效果的回顾分析[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2019, 99(11): 818-822. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2019.11.004.
[44]
VegaJ, Dalmau-PastorM. Editorial commentary: arthroscopic treatment of ankle instability is the emerging gold standard[J]. Arthroscopy, 2021, 37(1):280-281. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.10.043.
[45]
GizaE, ShinEC, WongSE, et al. Arthroscopic suture anchor repair of the lateral ligament ankle complex: a cadaveric study[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2013, 41(11):2567-2572. DOI: 10.1177/0363546513500639.
[46]
BrownAJ, ShimozonoY, HurleyET, et al. Arthroscopic versus open repair of lateral ankle ligament for chronic lateral ankle instability: a meta-analysis[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2020, 28(5):1611-1618. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-018-5100-6.
[47]
AraoyeI, De Cesar NettoC, ConeB, et al. Results of lateral ankle ligament repair surgery in one hundred and nineteen patients: do surgical method and arthroscopy timing matter?[J]. Int Orthop, 2017, 41(11):2289-2295. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3617-9.
[48]
TakaoM, MatsuiK, StoneJw, et al. Arthroscopic anterior talofibular ligament repair for lateral instability of the ankle[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2016, 24(4): 1003-1006. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3638-0.
[49]
AcevedoJI, MangoneP. Arthroscopic Broström technique[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2015, 36(4):465-473. DOI: 10.1177/1071100715576107.
[50]
JeongBO, KimMS, SongWJ, et al. Feasibility and outcome of inferior extensor retinaculum reinforcement in modified Broström procedures[J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2014, 35(11):1137-1142. DOI: 10.1177/1071100714543645.
[51]
KoKR, LeeWY, LeeH, et al. Repair of only anterior talofibular ligament resulted in similar outcomes to those of repair of both anterior talofibular and calcaneofibular ligaments[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2020, 28(1):155-162. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-018-5091-3.
[52]
LeeKT, LeeJI, SungKS, et al. Biomechanical evaluation against calcaneofibular ligament repair in the Broström procedure: a cadaveric study[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2008, 16(8):781-786. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-008-0557-3.
[53]
HuntKJ, PereiraH, KelleyJ, et al. The role of calcaneofibular ligament injury in ankle instability: implications for surgical management[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2019, 47(2):431-437. DOI: 10.1177/0363546518815160.
[54]
Dalmau-PastorM, MalageladaF, CalderJ, et al. The lateral ankle ligaments are interconnected: the medial connecting fibres between the anterior talofibular, calcaneofibular and posterior talofibular ligaments[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2020, 28(1):34-39. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-019-05794-8.
[55]
KuboM, YasuiY, SasaharaJ, et al. Simultaneous ossicle resection and lateral ligament repair give excellent clinical results with an early return to physical activity in pediatric and adolescent patients with chronic lateral ankle instability and os subfibulare[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2020, 28(1):298-304. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-019-05718-6.
[56]
PetreraM, DwyerT, TheodoropoulosJS, et al. Short-to medium-term outcomes after a modified Broström repair for lateral ankle instability with immediate postoperative weightbearing[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2014, 42(7):1542-1548. DOI: 10.1177/0363546514530668.
[57]
PearceCJ, TournéY, ZellersJ, et al. Rehabilitation after anatomical ankle ligament repair or reconstruction[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2016, 24(4):1130-1139. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-016-4051-z.
[58]
JiangD, AoYF, JiaoC, et al. Concurrent arthroscopic osteochondral lesion treatment and lateral ankle ligament repair has no substantial effect on the outcome of chronic lateral ankle instability[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2018, 26(10):3129-3134. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-017-4774-5.
[59]
LundeenGA, DunawayLJ. Immediate unrestricted postoperative weightbearing and mobilization after bone marrow stimulation of large osteochondral lesions of the talus[J]. Cartilage, 2017, 8(1):73-79. DOI: 10.1177/1947603516657639.
[60]
LiH, HuaY, LiH, et al. Treatment of talus osteochondral defects in chronic lateral unstable ankles: small-sized lateral chondral lesions had good clinical outcomes[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2018, 26(7):2116-2122. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-017-4591-x.
[61]
LeeDH, LeeKB, JungST, et al. Comparison of early versus delayed weightbearing outcomes after microfracture for small to midsized osteochondral lesions of the talus[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2012, 40(9):2023-2028. DOI: 10.1177/0363546512455316.
[62]
LeeK, JegalH, ChungH, et al. Return to play after modified Broström operation for chronic ankle instability in elite athletes[J]. Clin Orthop Surg, 2019, 11(1):126-130. DOI: 10.4055/cios.2019.11.1.126.
[63]
LiH, HuaY, FengS, et al. Lower signal intensity of the anterior talofibular ligament is associated with a higher rate of return to sport after ATFL repair for chronic lateral ankle instability[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2019, 47(10):2380-2385. DOI: 10.1177/0363546519858588.
 
 
展开/关闭提纲
查看图表详情
回到顶部
放大字体
缩小字体
标签
关键词