| Literature DB >> 35785090 |
Yaya Shi1, Wei Ding2, Meng Xu2.
Abstract
Medical imaging can be used as a medical aid for diagnosis and treatment, and color Doppler ultrasound can also be used in life science research as a scientific research method. Wushu is a traditional sport in China, which has a long history of development. Martial arts are a very good fitness project, but different from ordinary people, professional martial arts athletes are often accompanied by a variety of sports injuries, and tendon ligament injury is one of the most common injuries. At present, there are many treatment plans for tendon and ligament injury, but there are few researches on the repair effect of tendon and ligament injury. This paper will take this as the main research purpose for in-depth study. In view of the problem that ligament injury is not easy to observe, this paper will use GE Lightspeed 64 row spiral CT as the main observation tool and use the method of hospital image observation to compare and analyze the repair effect of tendon and ligament injury of Wushu athletes. In this experiment, 88 professional Wushu athletes were gathered as experimental samples. After preliminary screening, 110 cases of ligament injury were counted. After analyzing the abnormal changes of tissue or structure, Lysholm, and IKDC treatment effect score data, this paper believes that, for type I patients, only conservative treatment can achieve good results. However, in the more serious and complex type II patients, local fixation is used after the onset of the disease, and very serious patients can achieve good results through surgical treatment. Postoperative care is also important, which helps reduce complications. This experiment has achieved ideal results and has played a blank role in the research of the repair effect of tendon and ligament injury of Wushu athletes at home and abroad.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35785090 PMCID: PMC9249462 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8494734
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
AOFAS ankle posterior foot score data before and after treatment.
| Project and project No | Total score | Before treatment | Total score | After treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pain (1) | 17 | 17.53 ± 5.26 | 35 | 37.75 ± 4.63 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Autonomous activities (2) | 7 | 5.36 ± 2.77 | 12 | 9.23 ± 0.11 | 10.932 | 0.000 |
| Maximum walking distance (3) | 3 | 1.69 ± 0.56 | 6 | 4.14 ± 0.47 | 19.741 | 0.000 |
| Ground walking (4) | 3 | 1.55 ± 0.36 | 9 | 4.85 ± 0.25 | 15.215 | 0.000 |
| Abnormal gait (5) | 3 | 3.75 ± 1.92 | 6 | 6.71 ± 0.13 | 15.362 | 0.000 |
| Stretch (6) | 4 | 4.13 ± 0.82 | 10 | 7.23 ± 1.76 | 10.852 | 0.000 |
| Inside out (7) | 5 | 2.63 ± 0.23 | 5 | 5.96 ± 0.67 | 25.357 | 0.000 |
| Posterior foot stability (8) | 6 | 3.67 ± 0.72 | 6 | 6.66 ± 0.72 | 17.945 | 0.000 |
| Foot alignment (9) | 4 | 5.92 ± 1.32 | 9 | 8.23 ± 0.21 | 13.637 | 0.000 |
| Total | 52 | 45.33 ± 4.12 | 98 | 93.61 ± 6.41 | 34.472 | 0.000 |
Figure 1AOFAS ankle posterior foot score before and after treatment.
Statistics of abnormal changes of tissue or structure after treatment.
| Project and project No | Type I | Type II |
|---|---|---|
| Total number of patients (1) | 43 | 45 |
| Anterior talofibular ligament (2) | 36 | 15 |
| Ligaments calcaneus fibula (3) | 5 | 30 |
| Bone injury (4) | 13 | 37 |
| Joint capsule effusion (5) | 28 | 44 |
| Effusion of tendon sheath of long and short fibula (6) | 6 | 25 |
| Cartilage injury (7) | 0 | 9 |
Figure 2Statistical analysis of abnormal changes in tissue or structure after treatment.
Statistics of injury MRI scores in treatment group and nontreatment group.
| Group | 4 weeks | 8 weeks | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good repair | Poor repair | Good repair rate (%) | Good repair | Poor repair | Good repair rate (%) | |
| Treatment group | 38 | 6 | 86.36 | 44 | 0 | 100 |
| Nontreatment group | 27 | 17 | 61.36 | 35 | 9 | 79.54 |
Figure 3Statistical analysis of injury MRI scores in treatment group and nontreatment group.
Lysholm and IKDC treatment effect score data.
| Project | Before treatment | 1 year after treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lysholm score | 16.85 ± 7.31 | 89.33 ± 6.32 | 27.904 | 0.001 |
| IKDC score | 19.61 ± 9.72 | 90.82 ± 5.09 | 8.753 | 0.001 |
| Range of joint activity/(°) | 31.6 ± 23.7 | 121.9 ± 11.5 | 9.635 | 0.001 |
Figure 4Lysholm and IKDC treatment effect score data analysis.