中外医学研究
中外醫學研究
중외의학연구
CHINESE AND FOREIGN MEDICAL RESEARCH
2013年
4期
120-121
,共2页
经皮微创钢板内固定术%交锁髓内钉内固定术%微创化手术%生物学固定%胫骨骨折
經皮微創鋼闆內固定術%交鎖髓內釘內固定術%微創化手術%生物學固定%脛骨骨摺
경피미창강판내고정술%교쇄수내정내고정술%미창화수술%생물학고정%경골골절
Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis%Interlocking intramedullary nails%Minimally invasive surgery%Biological fixation%Tibial fractures
目的:比较探讨经皮微创钢板内固定术和交锁髓内钉内固定术治疗胫骨骨折的临床疗效和安全性.方法:笔者所在医院骨科将2011年8月-2012年8月收治的30例胫骨骨折患者,随机分为两组,各15例,分别施行经皮微创钢板内固定术(A 组)和交锁髓内钉内固定术(B 组).术中记录出血量、手术时间,术后记录骨痂出现时间、骨折愈合时间及不良反应.结果:采用经皮微创钢板内固定术或交锁髓内钉内固定术治疗后,所有患者全部伤口一期愈合,术中和术后均无严重手术并发症发生.经皮微创钢板内固定术的手术时间为(95±14)min,骨痂出现时间为(7.8±1.6)周,骨折愈合时间为(6.7±2.5)个月;交锁髓内钉内固定术的手术时间为(75±15)min,骨痂出现时间为(8.2±1.4)周,骨折愈合时间为(7.3±1.7)个月.结论:与传统开放性手术相比,经皮微创钢板内固定术或交锁髓内钉内固定术治疗胫骨骨折,临床疗效相当且显著;经皮微创钢板内固定术和交锁髓内钉内固定术两相比较,经皮微创钢板内固定术治疗胫骨骨折具有更明显的临床疗效及更高的安全性.
目的:比較探討經皮微創鋼闆內固定術和交鎖髓內釘內固定術治療脛骨骨摺的臨床療效和安全性.方法:筆者所在醫院骨科將2011年8月-2012年8月收治的30例脛骨骨摺患者,隨機分為兩組,各15例,分彆施行經皮微創鋼闆內固定術(A 組)和交鎖髓內釘內固定術(B 組).術中記錄齣血量、手術時間,術後記錄骨痂齣現時間、骨摺愈閤時間及不良反應.結果:採用經皮微創鋼闆內固定術或交鎖髓內釘內固定術治療後,所有患者全部傷口一期愈閤,術中和術後均無嚴重手術併髮癥髮生.經皮微創鋼闆內固定術的手術時間為(95±14)min,骨痂齣現時間為(7.8±1.6)週,骨摺愈閤時間為(6.7±2.5)箇月;交鎖髓內釘內固定術的手術時間為(75±15)min,骨痂齣現時間為(8.2±1.4)週,骨摺愈閤時間為(7.3±1.7)箇月.結論:與傳統開放性手術相比,經皮微創鋼闆內固定術或交鎖髓內釘內固定術治療脛骨骨摺,臨床療效相噹且顯著;經皮微創鋼闆內固定術和交鎖髓內釘內固定術兩相比較,經皮微創鋼闆內固定術治療脛骨骨摺具有更明顯的臨床療效及更高的安全性.
목적:비교탐토경피미창강판내고정술화교쇄수내정내고정술치료경골골절적림상료효화안전성.방법:필자소재의원골과장2011년8월-2012년8월수치적30례경골골절환자,수궤분위량조,각15례,분별시행경피미창강판내고정술(A 조)화교쇄수내정내고정술(B 조).술중기록출혈량、수술시간,술후기록골가출현시간、골절유합시간급불량반응.결과:채용경피미창강판내고정술혹교쇄수내정내고정술치료후,소유환자전부상구일기유합,술중화술후균무엄중수술병발증발생.경피미창강판내고정술적수술시간위(95±14)min,골가출현시간위(7.8±1.6)주,골절유합시간위(6.7±2.5)개월;교쇄수내정내고정술적수술시간위(75±15)min,골가출현시간위(8.2±1.4)주,골절유합시간위(7.3±1.7)개월.결론:여전통개방성수술상비,경피미창강판내고정술혹교쇄수내정내고정술치료경골골절,림상료효상당차현저;경피미창강판내고정술화교쇄수내정내고정술량상비교,경피미창강판내고정술치료경골골절구유경명현적림상료효급경고적안전성.
Objective:To investigate and compare with the clinical benefits and safety of utilizing minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and interlocking intramedullary nails fixation for the therapy of tibial fractures.Methods:30 patents with tibial fractures enrolled in orthopaedics of the first hospital of Wujiang from Aug 2011 to Aug 2012 were randomized into two groups,each group had 15 cases,and treated with minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and interlocking intramedullary nails fixation,respectively.Intraoperative blood loss,time of operation,time of bone callus forms,time of fracture healing,and severe adverse reactions were recorded.Results:After treatment of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and interlocking intramedullary nails fixation,all of the incision got the best cure,and no severe adverse reactions were observed during and post the surgical.For treatment of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis,the surgical time was (95±14)min,new bone callus appeared time was (7.8±1.6)weeks,and fracture healing time was (6.7±2.5)months.For treatment of intramedullary nail fixation,the surgical time was (75±15)min,new bone callus appeared time was (8.2±1.4) weeks,and fracture healing time was (7.3±1.7) months.Conclusion:Both the therapy methods of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and interlocking intramedullary nails fixation have equivalent but significant clinical benefits for tibial fractures when compared to the traditional open surgery.Overall the minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis method takes more advantage in clinical efficiency and safety for the treatment of tibial fractures than interlocking intramedullary nails fixation.
