Sponsor
  • ·
  • Chinese Association of
    Integrative Medicine;
    China Academy of Chinese
    Medicine Sciences
Editing
  • ·
  • Editorial Board of
    China Journal of
    Orthopaedics and Traumatology
Publishing
  • ·
  • Publishing House,
    China Journal of
    Orthopaedics and Traumatology
Overseas Distributor
  • ·
  • China International Book
    Trading Corporation
    P.O.Box 399,Beijing,China
    Code No.M587
Mail-order
  • ·
  • Publishing House,
    China Journal of
    Orthopaedics and Traumatology
    No.16A, Nanxiaojie, Dongzhimennei,
    Beijing 100700,China
    Tel:0086-10-84020925
    Fax:0086-10-84036581
    Http://www.zggszz.com
    E-mail:zggszz@sina.com
胫骨远端骨折两种治疗方法的疗效比较
Hits: 2316   Download times: 1393   Received:January 20, 2009    
作者Author单位UnitE-Mail
戴加平 DAI Jia-ping 嘉兴市第二医院骨科,浙江 嘉兴 314000 Department of Orthopaedics,the Second Hospital of Jiaxing,Jiaxing 314000,Zhejiang,China  
严盈奇 YAN Ying-qi 嘉兴市第二医院骨科,浙江 嘉兴 314000 Department of Orthopaedics,the Second Hospital of Jiaxing,Jiaxing 314000,Zhejiang,China  
俞叶峰 YU Ye-feng 嘉兴市第二医院骨科,浙江 嘉兴 314000 Department of Orthopaedics,the Second Hospital of Jiaxing,Jiaxing 314000,Zhejiang,China  
周晓 ZHOU Xiao 嘉兴市第二医院骨科,浙江 嘉兴 314000 Department of Orthopaedics,the Second Hospital of Jiaxing,Jiaxing 314000,Zhejiang,China  
期刊信息:《中国骨伤》2009年22卷,第5期,第361-363页
DOI:doi:10.3969/j.issn.1003-0034.yyyy.nn.zzz


目的:评价两种不同方法治疗胫骨远端骨折的临床适应证、并发症及其疗效。

方法:45例闭合性胫骨远端骨折采用不同手术方法A组25例,男18例,女7例;按AO/ASIF分类:A型4例,B型14例,C型7例;采用切开复位解剖型钢板内固定。B组20例,男12例,女8例;A型5例,B型9例,C型6例;采用微创经皮锁定钢板内固定。术后观察患者疼痛程度、切口皮肤坏死、深部感染发生率等并发症以及骨折愈合时间、踝关节运动功能进行对比研究。

结果:患者术后随访10~15个月,平均12个月。按视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分:A组中度~重度,B组轻度~中度; 骨性愈合时间:A组平均(16.0±4.2)周,B组平均(13.0±3.2)周,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).A组术后并发症发生率高于B组(P<0.05).踝关节功能评定按照Kofoed评分标准,术后踝关节功能恢复B组总体优良率明显高于A组(P<0.05).

结论:微创经皮锁定钢板内固定较切开复位解剖型钢板内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折具有手术创伤小,对骨骼血供影响小,骨折愈合快,并发症少,踝关节功能恢复好的优点,符合生物力学内固定。
[关键词]:胫骨远端骨折  骨折固定术  MIPPO技术
 
Curative effect comparison of two methods of treatment for distal tibial fractures
Abstract:

Objective: Evaluation of two different methods of treatment of distal tibial fractures of the clinical indications, complications and efficacy.

Methods: Forty-five cases of closed distal tibial fractures were assigned to two groups,25 cases in group A included 18 males and 7 females,according to the AO/ASIF classification:4 cases of type A,14 cases of B,7 cases of C,open reduction and anatomic plate fixation were used. Twenty cases in group B included 12 males and 8 females,5 of type A,9 of B,6 of C,minimally invasive percutaneous locking compression plate osteosynthesis were used. Observed on the postoperative pain,skin necrosis of the incision,the incidence of deep infection and other complications,as well as the healing of fractures,ankle motor function for comparative study.

Results: All patients were followed up 10 to 15 months,according to the visual analogue scale(VAS) score, group A were moderate to severe in,group B were mild to moderate between. Bone healing time: group A averaged(16.0±4.2) weeks,group B averaged(13.0±3.2) weeks,the difference was significant(P<0.01). Post-operative complications of group A was more than that of group B(P<0.05),there were significant differences. Ankle function in accordance with the assessment criteria Kofoed,the good and excellent rate of group B was higher than that of group A(P<0.05),there were significant differences.

Conclusion: Minimally invasive percutaneous locking compression plate osteosynthesis compared open reduction and anatomic plate fixation for distal tibial fractures with less trauma surgery,bone blood supply to the affected small,fracture healing faster,less complications,and ankle function better advantage of. It is consistent with the biomechanics of internal fixation,and is the treatment of tibial fractures ideal method.
KEYWORDS:Distal fractures of tibia  Fracture fixation  Minimally invasive percutaneous plate
 
引用本文,请按以下格式著录参考文献:
中文格式:戴加平,严盈奇,俞叶峰,周晓.胫骨远端骨折两种治疗方法的疗效比较[J].中国骨伤,2009,22(5):361~363
英文格式:DAI Jia-ping,YAN Ying-qi,YU Ye-feng,ZHOU Xiao.Curative effect comparison of two methods of treatment for distal tibial fractures[J].zhongguo gu shang / China J Orthop Trauma ,2009,22(5):361~363
View Full Text  View/Add Comment  Download reader
Close




版权所有:Editorial Office of China Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology京ICP备12048066号  版权声明
地址:No.16A, Nanxiaojie, Dongzhimennei, Beijing 100700, China
电话:0086-10-84036581 传真:0086-10-84036581 Email:zggszz@sina.com