CAJ | 학술논문

目的：对微创经皮钢板内固定与传统切开复位钢板内固定治疗胫骨骨折的临床效果进行比较分析。方法选择胫骨骨折患者114例，按照手术方式的不同分为微创组和传统组，每组57例，微创组采用微创经皮钢板内固定术治疗，传统组采用传统切开复位钢板内固定术治疗。比较两组临床疗效、手术时间、切口大小以及术中出血量。结果微创组临床有效率高于传统组；微创组手术时间、切口大小及术中出血量均低于传统组（P<0.05）。结论对胫骨骨折患者采取微创经皮钢板内固定术治疗可以取得临床疗效，对患者的创伤小。
목적：대미창경피강판내고정여전통절개복위강판내고정치료경골골절적림상효과진행비교분석。방법선택경골골절환자114례，안조수술방식적불동분위미창조화전통조，매조57례，미창조채용미창경피강판내고정술치료，전통조채용전통절개복위강판내고정술치료。비교량조림상료효、수술시간、절구대소이급술중출혈량。결과미창조림상유효솔고우전통조；미창조수술시간、절구대소급술중출혈량균저우전통조（P<0.05）。결론대경골골절환자채취미창경피강판내고정술치료가이취득림상료효，대환자적창상소。
Objective To compare the clinical effect of minimaly invasive surgery and traditional open reduction and internal fixation for the treatment of tibial fractures.Methods114 cases of patients with tibial fracture were divided into the minimaly invasive group and the traditional group according to the different operation mode,57 cases in each group. The minimaly invasive group treated with minimaly invasive percutaneous plate fixation for treatment,and the traditional group used the traditional open reduction and plate internal fixation for treatment. The clinical efficacy, operation time, incision size and bleeding volume were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe clinical efficiency of the minimaly invasive group was significantly higher than that of the traditional group,the minimaly invasive operation time, incision size and intraoperative blood loss of the minimaly invasive group were significantly lower than those of the traditional group(P< 0.05).Conclusion Use minimaly invasive percutaneous plate internal fixation for the treatment of tibial fractures can achieve a significant clinical effect, and the trauma is smal.