Objective To explore the cl inical effectiveness of debridement in treatment of Pes anserinus bursitis under arthroscopy by comparing the curative effect of three therapies: local block therapy, open operation and debridement under arthroscopy. Methods From January 2000 to January 2007, 90 cases of unilateral Pes anserinus bursitis were treated with debridement under arthroscopy (group A, n=30), local block therapy (group B, n=30) and open operation (group C, n=30),respectively. The group A included 18 males and 12 females, aged (40.0 ± 2.5) years old; the locations were left knee in 16 cases and right knee in 14 cases; 10 cases had injury history, 7 cases had tired history and 13 cases had no obvious inducement; the course of disease was (24.0 ± 3.2) weeks. The group B included 17 males and 13 females, aged (37.0 ± 2.5) years old; the locations were left knee in 15 cases and right knee in 15 cases; 10 cases had injury history, 8 cases had tired history and 12 cases had no obvious inducement; the course of disease was (26.3 ± 3.5) weeks. The group C included 16 males and 14 females, aged (39.8 ± 2.2) years old; the locations were left knee in 18 cases and right knee in 12 cases; 8 cases had injury history, 10 cases had tired history and 12 cases had no obvious inducement; the course of disease was (25.0 ± 3.9) weeks. There was no statistically significant difference in the general data among three groups (P gt; 0.05). Results All patients were followed up 15 months on average (12-24 months). In group C, the inflammatory reation occurred at wound in 9 cases (30%) at 3-10 days after operation and was cured after symptomatic management; other incision healed by first intention; and showing statistically significant differences when compared with other 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). In group C, joint swell ing occurred at 1 week after operation in 1 case, l imitation of joint motion in 2 cases at 10-12 weeks after operation and was recovered after symptomatic management. In group B, 21 cases (70%) had a recurrence at 6-12 months after operation, all patients of other 2 groups had no recurrence; showing statistically significant differences between group B and groups A, C (P lt; 0.05). At last follow-up, the pain remain rates were 3.3% (group A), 0 (group B) and 33.3% (group C), and the compl ication incidence rates were 3.3%, 26.7% and 70.0%, respectively; all showing statistically significant differences among three groups (P lt; 0.05). At last follow-up, there were statistically significant differences in the visual analogue scale (VAS) score, the HSS score, and range of motion (ROM) between preoperation and postoperation in group A (P lt; 0.05); there was no statistically significant difference in the VAS score, HSS score and ROM between preoperation and postoperation in group B (P gt; 0.05); the ROM of postoperation in group C was smaller than that of preoperation (P lt; 0.05). There were statistically significant differences in the VAS score and HSS score between group A and groups B, C (P lt; 0.05), and in ROM among three groups after operation (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion The treatment of Pes anserinus bursitis with debridement under arthroscopy has advantages of easy-to-do, less compl ication, low relapse rate and good functional rehabil itation.
Objective To systematic evaluate the efficacy and safety of the endovascular aortic repair （endovascular stent placement） and open operation in treatment of acute Stanford type B aortic dissection. Methods The literatures about clinical controlled trials of endovascular aortic repair and open operation in treatment of acute Stanford type B aortic dissection that were included in CNKI， Wanfang data， VIP， Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials of the Cochrane Library， OVID， Pubmed Medline， EBSCO， EMBASE， Springer Link，Science Direct， and other databases from January 1991 to January 2013 were retrieved by computer. RevMan 5.1 software were used to analyze the clinical trial data. Results Eight trials （5 618 patients with acute Stanford type B aortic dissection） were included in the analysis.There was statistically significant difference of the 30 d mortality after operation between the endovascular repair group and the open operation group， which endovascular repair group was significantly better than the open operation group〔OR=0.55，95% CI （0.46-0.65）， P＜0.000 01〕. In addition， there were significant difference between the incidence of stroke 〔OR=0.57， 95% CI （0.39-0.84）， P=0.005〕， respiratory failure 〔OR=0.64， 95% CI （0.53-0.78）， P＜0.000 01〕， and cardiac complications 〔OR=0.49，95% CI （0.38-0.64），P＜0.000 01〕，which endovascular repair group was better than the open operation group. However，endovascular repair could not improve the postoperative outcomes of paraplegia〔OR=1.30，95% CI （0.82-2.05），P=0.26〕 and acute renal failure 〔OR=0.86，95% CI （0.41-1.80），P=0.69〕. Conclusion Endovascular repair for treatment acute Stanford type B aortic dissection is preferred method.
Objective To discuss the differences of the effects on open colorectal cancer operation between using ultracision harmonic scalpel (UHS) and monopolar electrosurgery. Methods Fifty-nine patients from April to December in 2007, suffering colorectal cancer in the same treatment group, underwent open radical operation, 29 by GEN300 UHS (UHS group) and 30 by monopolar electrosurgery as control group. There was no significant difference between two groups among the factors of age, gender, tumor location, Dukes staging, gross morphology and degree of histological differentiation (Pgt;0.05). Results Shorter incision was applied in UHS group than in the control group. The mean operation time of UHS group and control group were 126 and 119 min, respectively (Pgt;0.05). The mean operative blood loss was 50 (20-140) ml in UHS group and 90 (40-200) ml in control group (Pgt;0.05). There were no significant differences among factors of bowel function recovery, mean hospitalization and incidence of complications between two groups (Pgt;0.05). The mean time for postoperative drainage fluid changing from bloody to serous was 8 (2-20) h in UHS group, however, 48 (16-80) h in control group (Plt;0.05). Conclusion In open colorectal cancer operation, benefits of using UHS are shorter incision and minimally invasiveness.