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
单边和环形外架在感染性胫骨骨不连治疗中的对比研究
Hits: 1432   Download times: 562   Received:August 16, 2022    
作者Author单位UnitE-Mail
聂少波 NIE Shao-bo 解放军总医院第一医学中心骨科, 北京 100853  
吴韬光 WU Tao-guang 解放军总医院第四医学中心骨科医学部, 北京 100048  
郝明 HAO Ming 解放军总医院第四医学中心骨科医学部, 北京 100048  
王锟 WANG Kun 解放军总医院第四医学中心骨科医学部, 北京 100048  
纪辉 JI Hui 解放军总医院第一医学中心, 麻醉手术中心, 北京 100853  
张群 ZHANG Qun 解放军总医院第四医学中心骨科医学部, 北京 100048 zhangqun301@sina.com 
期刊信息:《中国骨伤》2022年35卷,第10期,第908-913页
DOI:10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.2022.10.002


目的:对比单边和环形外架在感染性胫骨骨不连中的治疗效果,探索成骨能力更好和并发症更少的外固定架构型。

方法:回顾性纳入2010年1月至2014年12月治疗的150例感染性胫骨骨不连患者,符合纳入和排除标准的患者根据外固定类型分为单边组和环形组,收集两组患者的一般资料和围手术信息,通过像素比评价新生骨质量,通过并发症评估治疗效果,并根据并发症情况分析治疗注意事项。

结果:共64例胫骨中段感染性骨不连患者纳入研究,单边组26例,环形组38例。两组患者一般资料比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者新生骨像素比分别为0.91~0.97(0.94±0.03)和0.93~0.97(0.95±0.02),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。单边组外固定指数为34.1~50.6(42.3±8.3) d/cm,环形组为44.5~56.1(45.8±10.3) d/cm,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。单边组7例(26.9%)存在并发症,环形组5例(13.2%),组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但单边组5例发生足下垂,通过后续治疗后缓解,环形组无此情况。单边组的下地时间比环形组晚(P<0.05)。

结论:在治疗感染性骨不连时,单边和环形外架都能取得满意的骨愈合结果,且效果相当。对于骨质疏松严重,并发症多,需要早期下地的患者建议采用环形外架固定。如果选择单边外架,预期延长长度长、固定时间久的建议采用羟基磷灰石涂层螺钉固定,严密监测踝关节活动,防止足下垂畸形。
[关键词]:感染|骨不连|胫骨|外固定架|骨搬移
 
Comparative study of monolateral and circular fixator in the treatment of infectious tibial nonunion
Abstract:

Objective: To compare treatment effect of monolateral and circular external fixator in infectious tibial nonunion and to explore external fixation structure with better osteogenic ability and fewer complications.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 150 patients with infectious tibial nonunion admitted from January 2010 to December 2014. Patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were divided into monolateral fixator group and circular fixator group according to the type of external fixation. Demographic and perioperative data of the two groups were collected. New bone quality was assessed by pixels ratio,treatment effect was assessed by complications. Notes for treatment was explored by case analysis.

Results: A total of 64 patients with infectious mid-tibial nonunion were included,26 in monolateral fixator group and 38 in circular fixator group. There was no difference in demographic data between two groups. The pixel ratio of new bone between two groups was from 0.91 to 0.97 with an average of (0.94±0.03),and from 0.93 to 0.97 with an average of(0.95±0.02),respectively,with no statistical significance (P>0.05). The external fixation index was from 34.1 to 50.6 with an average of (42.3±8.3) days/cm in monolateral fixator group and from 44.5 to 56.1 with an average of (45.8±10.3) days/cm in the circular fixator group,and the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). There were 7 cases (26.9%) of complications in monolateral fixator group and 5 cases (13.2%) in circular fixator group,the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05),but 5 cases of foot ptosis in monolateral fixator group and none in circular fixator group. The time of weight bearing in monolateral fixator group was later than that in circular fixator group,and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusion: Monolateral and circular fixators can achieve equivalent bone formation in the treatment of infected tibial nonunion. Circular fixator is recommended for patients with severe osteoporosis or concomitant medical diseases requiring early weight bearing. Hydroxyapatite coated screws are recommended if a monolateral external fixator is selected when the expected enlarged length is long and the fixation time is long and close monitoring of the ankle movement is required to avoid foot droop.
KEYWORDS:Infection|Bone nonunion|Tibia|External fixator|Bone transport
 
引用本文,请按以下格式著录参考文献:
中文格式:聂少波,吴韬光,郝明,王锟,纪辉,张群.单边和环形外架在感染性胫骨骨不连治疗中的对比研究[J].中国骨伤,2022,35(10):908~913
英文格式:NIE Shao-bo,WU Tao-guang,HAO Ming,WANG Kun,JI Hui,ZHANG Qun.Comparative study of monolateral and circular fixator in the treatment of infectious tibial nonunion[J].zhongguo gu shang / China J Orthop Trauma ,2022,35(10):908~913
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