| Autor: |
김응수, 이창락, 김영준, 노상명, 박재근, 곽희철, 정선규 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Journal of Korean Foot & Ankle Society; Mar2018, Vol. 22 Issue 1, p26-31, 6p |
| Abstrakt: |
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical results between two different methods of hindfoot endoscopy to treat posterior ankle impingement syndrome. Materials and Methods: Between January 2008 and January 2014, 52 patients who underwent hindfoot endoscopy were retrospectively reviewed. Two methods of hindfoot endoscopy were used; Group A was treated according to van Dijk and colleagues' standard two-portal method, and group B was treated via the modified version of the above, using a protection cannula. For clinical comparison, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) hindfoot score, time required to return to activity, and the presence of complications were used. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the AOFAS scores at the final follow-up, and there was also no statistically significant difference in the times for the scores to return to the preoperative level. There were no permanent neurovascular injuries and wound problems in either group. Conclusion: Use of protection cannula may provide additional safety during hindfoot endoscopy. We could not prove whether protection cannula can provide superior safety for possible neurovascular injury. Considering the possible safety and risk of using additional instrument, the use of this method may be optional. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
