| Objective:To investigate the academic concept of reperfusion techniques for the treatment of stenotic tenosynovitis of the radial styloid process.To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of reperfusion techniques for the treatment of stenotic tenosynovitis of the radial styloid process,and to provide evidence-based evidence for its clinical promotion.Method:From December 2020 to December 2021,80 patients who met the inclusion criteria of radial styloid stenotic tenosynovitis were collected,and 40 patients were selected from each group by the randomization method and were included as the control group and the observation group,respectively.The control group was conventionally treated with fusotalin smear,and the groups were observed to cooperate with reperfusion manipulation.Before treatment,the general index(gender,age,disease duration,etc.),their clinical symptoms and signs(pain,joint dysfunction,etc.)were assessed to ensure homogeneity between the two groups.VAS scores,ulnar deviation angle of the wrist,and abduction angle of the thumb were recorded at1 week posttreatment and 3 weeks posttreatment in both groups.All data were analyzed using the statistical software SPSS23.0 Statistics analysis,inter-and intragroup contrasts were performed to derive the findings and comprehensively evaluate their clinical efficacy.Results:(1)General measures:Based on the data of gender,age,disease duration,visual analog scale for pain,ulnar deviation angle score of wrist,and abduction angle score of thumb.No significant difference was observed in the equal distribution of the general data between the two groups(P > 0.05),which met the basic conditions of a controlled pilot study.(2)Pain visual analogue scale:intragroup comparison: before contrast treatment,the difference in VAS pain score values between the two groups at 1 week,3 weeks after treatment was statistically significant(P <0.05),indicating that both groups experienced improvement in pain symptoms.After 1 week of comparative treatment,there was no significant difference between the two groups in the value of VAS pain scores at 3 weeks after treatment(P > 0.05),indicating that both treatment modalities had an effect on sustained relief of patients’ pain symptoms.Comparison between groups: there were statistically significant differences in VAS pain score values between the two groups at one week post-treatment(P <.05)and three weeks post-treatment(P <0.01).The difference in VAS pain scores between the patients in the observation group before treatment and those after 1 week(P < 0.01)and 3 weeks(P < 0.01)of treatment was significant,indicating that the observation group was more effective than the control group in relieving pain.By T ’test,the difference in VAS scores between the observation group after 1week of treatment and the 3-week posttreatment group was significant(P < 0.05),which indicated that the observation group had a better long-term outcome regarding pain relief than the control group.(3)Scoring of ulnar deviation of the wrist:intragroup comparison: before treatment,there was a significant difference(P < 0.05)in the ulnar deviation of the wrist between the two groups at 1 week posttreatment and 3 weeks posttreatment,indicating that both groups had increased wrist mobility.After contrast treatment for 1 week,the difference between the ulnar deviation angle of the wrist joint at 3weeks after treatment in both groups was statistically significant(P < 0.05),indicating that the ulnar deviation activity of the wrist joint at 3 weeks after treatment decreased compared with that at 1 week after treatment in both groups.Comparison between groups: patients in the observation group showed statistically significant differences in the ulnar deviation angle of the wrist between the groups at 1 week posttreatment(P < 0.01)and 3 weeks posttreatment(P< 0.01).In the observation group,statistically significant differences were observed in the difference of ulnar deviation angle between the wrist before treatment and after 1 week(P <0.01),between the wrist before treatment and 3 weeks(P < 0.01),and between the wrist after1 week and 3 weeks(P < 0.01).It indicated that the observation group was superior to the control group in terms of the improvement of wrist ulnar deviation mobility for patients at all time acquisition periods after the initiation of treatment,and it was superior in maintaining the long-term outcome of patients’ wrist ulnar deviation mobility.(4)Thumb abduction angle score:Thumb mobility was evaluated by thumb dorsiflexion and abduction angle.Intra group comparison: before treatment,there was significant difference in thumb back extension and abduction angle between the two groups after 1 week and 3 weeks of treatment(P < 0.05),indicating that the thumb activity of the two groups was improved.After 1 week of treatment,there was significant difference in thumb dorsiflexion and abduction angle between the two groups at 3 weeks after treatment(P < 0.05),indicating that the thumb activity of the two groups at 3 weeks after treatment was lower than that of 1 week after treatment.Comparison between groups: there were significant differences in thumb dorsiflexion and abduction angle between the two groups after 1 week of treatment(P < 0.01)and 3 weeks of treatment(P <0.01).The difference of thumb back extension and abduction angle between the two groups before and 1 week after treatment(P < 0.01),before and 3 weeks after treatment(P < 0.05)was statistically significant,indicating that the improvement of thumb activity in the observation group at each time after the start of treatment was better than that in the control group.However,there was no significant difference in thumb dorsiflexion and abduction angle between the two groups 1 week after treatment and 3 weeks after treatment(P > 0.05),indicating that there was no significant difference in the long-term effect of maintaining thumb mobility between the two groups.(5)Clinical efficacy:after 1-week treatment in both groups,3 patients in the control group were cured,32 were effective,and 5 were ineffective;In the observation group,13 patients were cured and 26 patients were effective,however,the difference in efficacy between the two groups was statistically significant(P < 0.01).The cure rate was 32.5% in the observation group and 7.5%in the control group,and the difference between the cure rates of the two groups was statistically significant(P < 0.05);The clinical overall response rates of the observation and control groups were 97.5,87.5%,respectively,and there was no significant difference between the two groups(P > 0.05).When returned 3 weeks after treatment,2 patients in the control group were cured,26 were effective,and 12 were not effective;In the observation group,12 cases were cured and 27 cases were effective,no matter one case,the difference in efficacy between the two groups was statistically significant(P < 0.01).The cure rate was 30.0% in the observation group and5.0% in the control group,and the difference between the cure rates of the two groups was statistically significant(P < 0.01);The clinical overall response rates of the observation and control groups were 97.5% and 70.0%,respectively,and the clinical overall response rate of the observation group was significantly better than that of the control group(P < 0.01).Conclusions:Both treatment groups were effective in relieving clinical symptoms,optimizing wrist mobility,and increasing thumb flexibility in patients with radial styloid stenotic tenosynovitis;However,reperfusion maneuvers showed more prominent efficacy in treating the clinical symptoms of patients with radial styloid stenotic tenosynovitis,as well as more stable long-term results in improving pain symptoms and wrist mobility than the control group. |
PDF Full Text Request