CAJ | 학술논문

目的：回顾不同方式治疗肋骨骨折患者的临床效果，为多发肋骨骨折的治疗寻找合理的治疗方案。方法2828例多发肋骨骨折患者，根据损伤程度及治疗方法不同分为单纯保守治疗组(A组， n=2080)、外固定治疗组(B组， n=473)、手术治疗组(C组， n=275)，对比其平均住院时间、止痛药应用时间、并发症发生率。结果A组平均住院时间较B组和C组明显延长，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)，而B组与C组平均住院时间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。C组应用止痛药物时间较A组和B组明显缩短，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)，而A组与B组应用止痛药物时间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。C组并发症发生率较A组、B组明显降低，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)， A组与B组并发症发生率相当，组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论对于多发肋骨骨折患者，保守治疗应选择外固定治疗为宜；而肋骨骨折手术治疗患者获益更多，对于有手术指征的患者应积极手术治疗。
목적：회고불동방식치료륵골골절환자적림상효과，위다발륵골골절적치료심조합리적치료방안。방법2828례다발륵골골절환자，근거손상정도급치료방법불동분위단순보수치료조(A조， n=2080)、외고정치료조(B조， n=473)、수술치료조(C조， n=275)，대비기평균주원시간、지통약응용시간、병발증발생솔。결과A조평균주원시간교B조화C조명현연장，차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)，이B조여C조평균주원시간비교차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)。C조응용지통약물시간교A조화B조명현축단，차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)，이A조여B조응용지통약물시간비교차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)。C조병발증발생솔교A조、B조명현강저，차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)， A조여B조병발증발생솔상당，조간비교차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)。결론대우다발륵골골절환자，보수치료응선택외고정치료위의；이륵골골절수술치료환자획익경다，대우유수술지정적환자응적겁수술치료。
Objective To review the clinical effects of different treatment methods for rib fracture patients, so as to explore rational treatment method for rib fracture.Methods A total of 2828 rib fracture patients were divided into conventional treatment group (group A, n=2080), external fixation treatment group (group B, n=473), and surgery treatment group (group C, n=275), according to their different injury degree and treatment methods. The average hospital stays, painkillers application time, incidence of complications were compared in the three groups.Results The average hospital stays of group A was longer than group B and group C, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). While the average hospital stays had no significant difference between group B and group C (P>0.05). Application time of painkillers was obviously shorter in group C than in group A and group B, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). While the difference of painkillers application time was no statistically significant between group A and group B (P>0.05). The incidence of complications in group C was lower than group B and group A, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The incidence of complications was similar between group A and group B, and the difference had no statistical significance (P>0.05).Conclusion External fixation is suitable for conventional treatment for rib fracture, while surgery method can provide more benefit for patients, therefore patients with operation indications should be given active surgical treatment.