当代医学
噹代醫學
당대의학
CHINA CONTEMPORARY MEDICINE
2015年
12期
28-29
,共2页
微创植骨术%开放植骨术%骨缺损
微創植骨術%開放植骨術%骨缺損
미창식골술%개방식골술%골결손
Minimally invasive bone graft surgery%Open bone graft surgery%Bone defect
目的：探讨微创植骨术与开放植骨术治疗骨缺损的临床治疗效果。方法选取64例骨缺损患者资料进行分析，根据病例资料将患者分为微创组（采用微创植骨术）和开放组（采用开放植骨术），各32例。比较2组患者术后骨密度检查结果、手术时间、出血量及住院时间。结果微创组第1周骨密度为（0.126±0.031）g/cm 3、第4周骨密度检查为（0.138±0.007）g/cm 3、第8周骨密度检查为（0.249±0.051）g/cm 3，显著高于开放组（P<0.05）；微创组总有效率为81.25%，显著高于开放组（53.13%（）P<0.05）；微创组手术时间为（42.0±5.0）min、住院时间为（5.0±1.0）d，显著少于开放组（P<0.05）；微创组出血量为（65.0±10.0）mL,显著高于开放组（P<0.05）。结论骨缺损治疗过程中采用微创植骨术治疗效果理想，值得推广使用。
目的：探討微創植骨術與開放植骨術治療骨缺損的臨床治療效果。方法選取64例骨缺損患者資料進行分析，根據病例資料將患者分為微創組（採用微創植骨術）和開放組（採用開放植骨術），各32例。比較2組患者術後骨密度檢查結果、手術時間、齣血量及住院時間。結果微創組第1週骨密度為（0.126±0.031）g/cm 3、第4週骨密度檢查為（0.138±0.007）g/cm 3、第8週骨密度檢查為（0.249±0.051）g/cm 3，顯著高于開放組（P<0.05）；微創組總有效率為81.25%，顯著高于開放組（53.13%（）P<0.05）；微創組手術時間為（42.0±5.0）min、住院時間為（5.0±1.0）d，顯著少于開放組（P<0.05）；微創組齣血量為（65.0±10.0）mL,顯著高于開放組（P<0.05）。結論骨缺損治療過程中採用微創植骨術治療效果理想，值得推廣使用。
목적：탐토미창식골술여개방식골술치료골결손적림상치료효과。방법선취64례골결손환자자료진행분석，근거병례자료장환자분위미창조（채용미창식골술）화개방조（채용개방식골술），각32례。비교2조환자술후골밀도검사결과、수술시간、출혈량급주원시간。결과미창조제1주골밀도위（0.126±0.031）g/cm 3、제4주골밀도검사위（0.138±0.007）g/cm 3、제8주골밀도검사위（0.249±0.051）g/cm 3，현저고우개방조（P<0.05）；미창조총유효솔위81.25%，현저고우개방조（53.13%（）P<0.05）；미창조수술시간위（42.0±5.0）min、주원시간위（5.0±1.0）d，현저소우개방조（P<0.05）；미창조출혈량위（65.0±10.0）mL,현저고우개방조（P<0.05）。결론골결손치료과정중채용미창식골술치료효과이상，치득추엄사용。
Objective To investigate the minimally invasive surgery and bone grafting in the treatment of bone defects open clinical effect. Methods 64 patients bone defect data November 2010 - November 2013 admitted for analysis, patients were divided according to clinical data will be minimally invasive group (minimally invasive bone grafting) and open group (with an open bone grafting) postoperative bone density test results comparing two groups of patients, operative time, blood loss and hospital stay.Results BMD of the ifrst week of the minimally invasive group (0.126±0.031) g / cm3, the fourth week to check for bone density (0.138±0.007) g / cm3, the ifrst 8 weeks to check for bone mineral density (0.249±0.051) g / cm3, signiifcantly higher than the open group (P<0.05); minimally invasive total effective rate was 81.25%, signiifcantly higher than the open group (53.1%) (P<0.05); minimally invasive operative time was (42.0±5.0) min hospitalization time was (5.0±1.0) days, signiifcantly less than the open group (P<0.05); the amount of bleeding for the minimally invasive group (65.0±10.0) mL was signiifcantly higher than the open group (P<0.05).Conclusion The treatment of bone defects in minimally invasive treatment of bone grafting ideal, should be introduced.
