微创经皮与传统切开复位内固定治疗胫骨骨折的疗效比较

常占锋，沈世明

（榆林市神木县大柳塔公安医院，陕西 榆林，719315）

浏览次数：88次 下载次数：315次

摘要：

目的 探讨胫骨骨折采用传统切开复位内固定与微创经皮钢板内固定术治疗的效果。方法 选择我院收治的胫骨骨折患者 100例，随机分为微创组和传统组，各50例。微创组患者采用微创经皮钢板内固定术治疗，传统组患者采用传统切开复位内固 定术治疗。比较两组治疗效果。结果 两组均平均随访（14.2±2.1）个月，组间手术时间和住院时间差异不显著（P>0.05），但微创组 切口长度、术中出血量、骨痂形成时间及愈合时间均优于传统组（P<0.05）；微创组患者临床治疗效果优良率为94.00%，明显高于传 统组的74.00%（P<0.05）。微创组并发症发生率为2.00%，传统组并发症发生率为6.00%，组间差异不显著（P>0.05）。结论 相较于传统内固定术，胫骨骨折采用微创经皮钢板内固定治疗，损伤小，与生物学接骨原则更为符合，可为患者功能恢复打下良好基础。

关键词：胫骨骨折；微创经皮钢板内固定；传统切开复位内固定

中图分类号：R687.3文献标志码：A文章编号：2096-1413(2017)34-0083-02

Effects comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous and conventional open reduction and internal fixation in the treatment of tibial fractures
CHANG Zhan-feng, SHEN Shi-ming
(Daliuta Gong``an Hospital of Shenmu County, Yulin 719315, China)

ABSTRACT: Objective To investigate the effects of minimally invasive percutaneous and conventional open reduction and internal fixation in the treatment of tibial fractures. Methods One hundred cases of patients with tibial fractures admitted in our hospital were selected and randomly assigned to minimally invasive group and traditional group, with 50 cases in each group. The minimally invasive group accepted minimally invasive percutaneous plate fixation, and the traditional group was given traditional open reduction and internal fixation, then the clinical effects were compared between the two groups. Results Both groups were followed up for an average of (14.2±2.1) months. There was no significant difference in the operative time and hospitalization time between the two groups (P>0.05). However, the incision length, intraoperative blood
loss, callus formation time and healing time in the minimally invasive group were superior to those in the traditional group (P<0.05). The excellent and good rate of minimally invasive group was 94.00%, which was significantly higher than 74.00% of the traditional group (P<0.05). The incidence of complications in the minimally invasive group was 2.00%, it was 6.00% in the traditional group, the difference between the two groups was not significant (P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with conventional open reduction and internal fixation, minimally invasive percutaneous and internal fixation in the treatment of tibial fractures has less damage, and it is more consistent with the principle of biological bone fracture, which can lay a good foundation for functional recovery.
KEYWORDS: tibial fractures; minimally invasive percutaneous and internal fixation; traditional open reduction and internal fixation

参考文献：
[1] 刘正刚.微创经皮钢板内固定与传统切开复位钢板内固定治疗胫 骨远端骨折的临床对比研究[J].中国医学前沿杂志,2014,6(8):117-120.
[2] 荣国威,翟桂华,刘沂,等.骨折内固定(AO 组织推荐)[M].3 版.北京: 人民卫生出版社,1988:106-109.
[3] 候丰忠,刘增亮,钞丁祥.微创经皮钢板内固定术与切开复位钢板 内固定治疗胫骨Pion 骨折的疗效比较[J].实用临床医药杂志,2015,19(19):92-93.
[4] 叶圣昭,冯永增.经皮微创闭合复位与切开复位内固定治疗踝关节 骨折的临床疗效比较研究[J].浙江创伤外科,2015,20(5):971-972.
[5] CHENG W,LI Y,MANYI W.Comparison study of two surgical options for distal tibia fracture -minimally invasive plate osteosynthesisvs.open reduction and internal fixation[J].Int Orthop,2011,35(5):737-742.
[6] 胡志伟,范春玲,李洵.传统切开复位内固定与微创经皮钢板内固 定手术治疗pilonⅢ型骨折疗效观察[J].中国现代药物应用,2016,10(5):58-59.
[7] 邓颂波,张耀强,徐火荣.不同术式治疗胫骨远端Pilon 骨折疗效比 较[J].中国基层医药,2012,19(24):3738-3739.
[8] 邹凯,车彪,王凯.微创经皮钢板内固定与切开复位钢板内固定治 疗胫骨远端骨折的疗效对比研究[J].临床和实验医学杂志,2013,12(11):851-853.
[9] 李德胜,杨明贵,马健,等.微创经皮与传统切开复位内固定治疗胫 骨骨折的疗效比较[J].重庆医学,2012,41(21):2164-2165.