法医学杂志

法医学杂志 ›› 2011, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (2): 98-101.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-5619.2011.02.005

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

肘关节损伤致上肢功能障碍程度评价方法的比较

张  敏1，2，范利华2，夏  晴2，陈  芳2，3   

  1. （1. 华东政法大学 刑事司法学院，上海 200042； 2. 司法部司法鉴定科学技术研究所 上海市法医学重点实验室，上海 200063； 3. 苏州大学 医学部法医学教研室，江苏 苏州 215123）
  • 发布日期:2011-04-25 出版日期:2011-04-28
  • 通讯作者: 通信作者：范利华，主任法医师，硕士研究生导师；E-mail：flhua191@sohu.com
  • 作者简介:张敏（1987—），女，江苏南通人，硕士研究生，主要从事法医临床学司法鉴定研究；E-mail：zhangm@ssfjd.cn

Comparison of Evaluation Methods on Upper Limb Dysfunction Caused by Elbow Joint Injury

ZHANG MIN1,2, FAN LI-HUA2, XIA QING2, CHEN FANG2,3   

  1. （1. College of Criminal Justice, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai 200042, China; 2. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Forensic Medicine, Institute of Forensic Science, Ministry of Justice, P.R.China, Shanghai 200063, China; 3. Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China）
  • Online:2011-04-25 Published:2011-04-28

被引次数

4

摘要： 目的 比较我国《道路交通事故受伤人员伤残评定》（简称《道标》）与美国《永久残损评定指南》（简称GEPI）对肘关节活动功能障碍致上肢功能丧失程度的评价结果。 方法 对70例肘关节活动功能障碍者分别用上述两种方法评价上肢功能丧失程度，并对两种方法评价结果进行分析比较。 结果 两种方法评价结果的差异具有统计学意义。当肘关节屈伸活动不能达到功能位时，两种评价结果差别较大；在达到功能位后，结果逐渐接近。肘关节在不同位置强直时，《道标》方法评价的结果基本一致，而GEPI方法评价结果呈“V”型变化。 结论 《道标》与GEPI对肘关节活动功能障碍评价结果的差异，在于后者考虑到关节活动是否接近或达到功能位对一上肢功能丧失程度的影响，而前者未考虑功能位的因素。

关键词: 法医学, 肘关节, 活动范围, 关节, 伤残评定

Abstract: Objective To compare the degrees of upper limb impairment, which was caused by elbow movement dysfunction, evaluated by “Assessment for Body Impairment of the Injured in Road Traffic Accident”（ABIR） with that evaluated by “Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment（GEPI）”． Methods The impairment degrees of 70 persons with elbow joint movement dysfunction were evaluated by ABIR and GEPI, respectively. And the evaluation results were analyzed and compared． Results There was statistical difference between the results. When the elbow movement could not reach to the functional position, there was great difference between the results. When the elbow movement could reach to the functional position, the difference became smaller. The degrees of impairment, which were evaluated by ABIR, were the same when the elbow joint was rigidity with ankylosis in different positions. The degrees of the dysfunction evaluated by ABIR did not change, but the degrees evaluated by GEPI were V-shape change. Conclusion The difference of upper limb dysfunction degrees evaluated by ABIR and GEPI dependent on whether or not to consider the position of elbow joint rigidity．

Key words: forensic medicine, elbow joint, range of motion, articular, disability evaluation

中图分类号: