| Literature DB >> 36042981 |
Abstract
In order to solve the problem of rehabilitative physical training on ice and snow sports injuries, the author proposed an observation method using ultrasonography to be proposed. This method selects patients with anterior talofibular ligament injury treated in a hospital, forty-nine patients who did not undergo conventional rehabilitation under the surveillance of sports medicine ultrasound were set as the control group, a total of 49 patients with anterior talofibular ligament injury who underwent rehabilitation treatment under the monitoring of sports medicine ultrasound were selected as the experimental group, and the clinical efficacy of the two groups of patients was retrospectively analyzed, in order to discuss the application value of sports medicine ultrasound in the rehabilitation of anterior talofibular ligament injury. The results showed that comparing the rehabilitation effect, ankle function score, and daily living ability of the two groups of patients, the experimental group was better than the control group. Comparing the thickness of ligament and effusion between the two groups, the experimental group was also better than the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Ultrasound medical examination can help doctors to effectively judge the degree of injury and recovery of patients, and doctors can adjust the treatment plan in time according to the examination results and formulate an effective rehabilitation plan, which can greatly shorten the recovery time of patients, improve the treatment effect, promote the functional recovery of the ankle joint, and reduce the occurrence of complications.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36042981 PMCID: PMC9377995 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2931686
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scanning ISSN: 0161-0457 Impact factor: 1.750
Comparison of general data of the two groups of patients.
| Project | Personalization group ( | Regular group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender: male female | 14/26 | 12/28 | 1.747 | 0.533 |
| Age | 17.7 ± 2.1 | 17.2 ± 1.9 | 0.825 | 0.876 |
| Average training time/year | 4.3 ± 2.0 | 4.8 ± 2.5 | 1.443 | 0.452 |
Comparison of main injury sites in the two groups of patients.
| Injury site | Personalization group ( | Regular group ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of cases/cases | Rate/% | Number of cases/cases | Rate/% | ||
| Lower back | 11 | 27.5 | 12 | 30.0 | 0.468 |
| Knee and hip joints | 13 | 32.5 | 15 | 37.5 | 0.332 |
| Shoulder and wrist joints | 6 | 15.0 | 4 | 10.0 | 0.317 |
| Head and face | 2 | 5.0 | 1 | 2.5 | 0.462 |
| Chest and abdomen | 1 | 2.5 | 0 | 0.0 | − |
| Legs | 5 | 12.5 | 4 | 10.0 | 0.428 |
| Other | 2 | 5.0 | 4 | 10.0 | 0.347 |
Comparison of main injury types between the two groups of patients.
| Damage type | Personalization group ( | Regular group ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of cases/cases | Rate/% | Number of cases/cases | Rate/% | ||
| Joint sprain | 12 | 30.0 | 12 | 30.0 | 1.000 |
| Muscle strain | 8 | 20.0 | 10 | 25.0 | 0.419 |
| Myofasciitis | 4 | 10.0 | 3 | 7.5 | 0.283 |
| Joint contusion | 3 | 7.5 | 4 | 10.0 | 0.507 |
| Belt strain | 7 | 17.5 | 7 | 17.5 | 0.462 |
| Bruises | 2 | 5.0 | 1 | 2.5 | 0.404 |
| Bruise | 3 | 7.5 | 2 | 5.0 | 0.393 |
| Frozen | 1 | 2.5 | 1 | 2.5 | 1.000 |
Figure 1Rehabilitation physical training.
Comparison of rehabilitation effects between the two groups of patients (cases (%)).
| Group | Recover completely | General recovery | Not fully recovered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test group ( | 46 (93.88) | 10 (51.23) | 3 (6.12) |
| Control group ( | 39 (79.59) | 9 (12.34) | 10 (20.41) |
|
| 4.3460 | ||
|
| 0.0371 | ||
Comparison of the thickness of the anterior talofibular ligament and the thickness of the effusion between the two groups of patients before and after treatment (mm, ).
| Group | Ligament thickness | Effusion thickness | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before therapy | After treatment | Before therapy | After treatment | |
| Test group ( | 4.37 ± 0.59 | 3.67 ± 0.57 | 7.54 ± 2.17 | 2.82 ± 0.67 |
| Control group ( | 4.61 ± 0.63 | 4.03 ± 0.65 | 7.49 ± 2.13 | 5.20 ± 1.78 |
|
| 1.8444 | 2.7622 | 0.1091 | 8.3006 |
|
| 0.0686 | 0.0070 | 0.9134 | 0.0000 |
Comparison of ankle function scores between two groups of patients (points, ).
| Group | Biard-Jackson score | |
|---|---|---|
| Before therapy | After treatment | |
| Test group ( | 62.35 ± 6.71 | 89.71 ± 2.17 |
| Control group ( | 62.76 ± 6.05 | 80.45 ± 1.98 |
|
| 0.3010 | 20.9098 |
|
| 0.7641 | 0.0000 |
Figure 2Comparison of daily living ability between the two groups of patients (score, ).