CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较可吸收内固定材料及金属内固定材料治疗三踝骨折的临床效果。方法选择奉化市中医院骨科2003年2月~2009年1月治疗的三踝骨折124例，分为实验组及对照组。实验组68例采用可吸收螺钉内固定，对照组56例采用传统金属内固定材料内固定。采用Leeds评价标准对两组进行疗效评价；记录并比较两组患者手术时间，切口、骨折愈合时间，并发症发生情况及满意度情况。结果①实验组手术时间平均为(101.7±10.0)min，对照组为(145.9±11.6)min，两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；两组切口愈合时间及骨折愈合时间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。②实验组获得随访的67例患者中，优54例，良9例，中3例，差1例。对照组获得随访的54例患者中，优43例，良8例，中2例，差1例。两组优良率比较，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；两组并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。实验组总满意率高于对照组，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论可吸收内固定材料治疗三踝骨折的临床疗效与传统金属内固定材料疗效相当，然而后者不需要再次手术取出内固定物，且副作用较少，是临床工作者的较好选择。
목적：비교가흡수내고정재료급금속내고정재료치료삼과골절적림상효과。방법선택봉화시중의원골과2003년2월~2009년1월치료적삼과골절124례，분위실험조급대조조。실험조68례채용가흡수라정내고정，대조조56례채용전통금속내고정재료내고정。채용Leeds평개표준대량조진행료효평개；기록병비교량조환자수술시간，절구、골절유합시간，병발증발생정황급만의도정황。결과①실험조수술시간평균위(101.7±10.0)min，대조조위(145.9±11.6)min，량조비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)；량조절구유합시간급골절유합시간차이균무통계학의의(P>0.05)。②실험조획득수방적67례환자중，우54례，량9례，중3례，차1례。대조조획득수방적54례환자중，우43례，량8례，중2례，차1례。량조우량솔비교，차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)；량조병발증발생솔차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)。실험조총만의솔고우대조조，차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론가흡수내고정재료치료삼과골절적림상료효여전통금속내고정재료료효상당，연이후자불수요재차수술취출내고정물，차부작용교소，시림상공작자적교호선택。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of absorbable fixation materials and metal fixation materials in the treatment of trimalleolar fracture. Methods 124 patients of trimalleolar fracture in Fenghua Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital from February 2003 to January 2009 were selected and divided into experiment group and control group. 68 cases in experiment group were treated with absorbable screw fixation, 56 cases in control group were treated with traditional metal fixation materials. Therapeutic efficiency in the two groups were evaluated by Leeds evaluation criterion; operation time, incision healing time, fracture healing time, complication occurrence and satisfaction situation between the two groups were recorded and compared. Results①The operation time in experiment group were (101.7±10.0) min, the operation time in control group were (145.9±11.6) min, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The incision healing time, fracture healing time between the two groups were all not statistically significant (P>0.05).②67 cases were followed up in experiment group, 54 cases with superior result, 9 cases with good result, 3 cases with medium result, 1 case with bad result were found in experiment group. 54 cases were followed up in control group, 43 cases with superior result, 8 cases with good result, 2 cases with medium result, 1 case with bad result were found in control group, the difference of excellent rate between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The difference of complication occurrence rate between the two groups was not statistically significant (P> 0.05). Total sat-isfaction rate in experiment group was higher than that in control group, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion The clinical efficacy absorbable fixation materials and traditional internal fixation material in the treatment of trimalleolar fracture is same. But the latter do not need another operation to remove the implant, and has fewer side effects, it is a good choice of clinical workers.