[Case-control study on therapeutic effects of @entity1787 and @entity2995 on the treatment of XXXX ].

@entity1 @entity1143 @entity2995 @entity1787 @entity130
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical therapeutic effects between @entity1787 and @entity2995 for the treatment of mild @entity130 . METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2012, 119 @entity1 with @entity130 diagnosed as type I or II by MRI were divided into three groups. In the @entity2995 (A) group, there were 38 males and 2 females, with an average age of (25.34 +/- 6.34) years old, ranging from 18 to 48 years old; 36 @entity1 had single knee injuries, 4 @entity1 had double knee injuries and 44 knees with @entity1143 . In the @entity1787 (B) group,there were 37 males and 2 females, with an average age of (26.98 +/- 7.20) years old, ranging from 19 to 50 years old; 33 @entity1 had single knee injuries, 6 patiens had double knees injuries and 40 knees with @entity1143 . In the combination of @entity1787 and @entity2995 (C) group, there were 37 males and 3 females,with an average age of (26.44 +/- 6.38) years old, ranging from 18 to 47 years old; 33 @entity1 had single knee injuries, 7 @entity1 had double knees injuries and 39 knees with @entity1143 . The @entity1 were treated with injection of 3 mg @entity2995 alone, 30 ml (30 microg/ml) @entity1787 alone, or both two drugs respectively in knee joint cavity. All the treatment methods were carried out weekly and 4 times injections were required for a treatment course. Knee joint function was evaluated by Lysholm scale and @entity1143 was examined by MRI before and after treatment. RESULTS: The scale of knee joint function was 35.68 +/- 4.15 and 65.55 +/- 7.66 in group A, 36.35 +/- 6.83 and 74.39 +/- 8.47 in group B, 36.62 +/- 6.03 and 95.47 +/- 4.78 in group C before and after treatment. Compared with that before treatment, the total scale of knee joint function improved after treatment in every group. The total scale of group C was better than that of the other groups after the treatment,but there was no significant difference between group A and group B. The effective rate of these @entity1143 was 68.18% in group A, 62.5% in group B and 87.18% in group C. The effect of co-injection on @entity1143 in group C was significantly better than that of @entity2995 or @entity1787 alone, but the difference between group A and group B was not significant. CONCLUSION: @entity1787 and @entity2995 are effective in the treatment of mild @entity130 , which can relieve symptoms and promote the recovery of joint function. Campared with the single injection, the combination of @entity1787 and @entity2995 is better.
