Please wait a minute...

中国现代手术学杂志  2018, Vol. 22 Issue (3): 196-200    DOI: 10.16260/j.cnki.1009-2188.2018.03.009
  临床论著 |
专家型髓内钉与经皮锁定钢板治疗胫骨中下段骨折疗效比较
倪进荣1,邓杰林1,王立新2
1.江苏省宿迁市第一人民医院骨科,宿迁223800; 2.上海交通大学医学院附属新华医院 崇明分院骨科,上海 202150
Effect Comparison on Internal Fixation of Expert Tibia Nail and Miniinvasive Percutaneous Locking Plate for Middledistal Tibia Fractures
NI Jinrong1, DENG Jielin1, WANG Lixin2
1.Department of Orthopaedics, The First People's Hospital of Suqian, Suqian 223800, Jiangsu, China; 2.Department of Orthopaedics, Chongming Branch, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 202150, China
下载: 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 目的比较专家型髓内钉与经皮锁定钢板固定治疗胫骨中下段骨折的临床疗效。 方法对2010年2月~2015年2月应用专家型髓内钉与经皮锁定钢板两种手术方式治疗的胫骨中下段骨折患者共68例进行回顾性分析,其中专家型髓内钉组32例,经皮锁定钢板组36例。比较两组手术时间、 术中出血量、 住院时间、 骨性愈合时间、 术后并发症及踝关节功能。结果68例患者均获随访, 随访时间6~18个月。与经皮锁定钢板组比较, 专家型髓内钉组手术时间长, 术中出血量少, 住院时间短(P均<0.05);两组骨折愈合时间及术后并发症率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后5个月按JohnerWruhs评分评价疗效: 专家型髓内钉组优22例, 良8例, 可2例;经皮锁定钢板组优25例,良8例,可3例;两组优良率分别为93.7%和91.7%,组间比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论专家型髓内钉与经皮锁定钢板两种固定方法骨性愈合时间短、术后并发症少、术后踝关节功能恢复好、内固定稳定性强,均是治疗胫骨中下段骨折的良好选择。尤其是专家型髓内钉内固定,对局部软组织条件不佳者更加合适。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
NI Jinrong1
DENG Jielin1
WANG Lixin2
关键词:  胫骨骨折  骨折固定术  专家型交锁髓内钉  锁定钢板    
Abstract: ObjectiveTo compare the clinical effect of internal fixation of expert tibia nail (ETN) and miniinvasive percutaneous locking plate (MILP) for treatment of middledistal tibia fractures.MethodA retrospective study was conducted on 68 middledistal tibia fractures treated with ETN (32 cases) and MILP (36 cases) in our hospital from February 2010 to February 2015, and the efficacy of the two therapeutic method was compared.ResultsSixtyeight cases were followed up for 6 to 18 months. Compare to MILP group, the operation time was longer, intraoperative blood loss was less and the hospital stays was shorter in ETN group, and the differences were statistically (P<0.05). However, there was no statistical difference in fracture healing duration and postoperative complication rate. According to JoherWruhs criteria, the result was revealed 22 cases of excellence, 8 cases of good and 2 cases of fair in the ETN group, and 25 of excellence, 8 of good and 3 of fair in the MILP group, there was no statistic difference in the fineness rate at 5 months after operation between the two groups (93.7% vs. 91.7%, P>0.05).ConclusionsBoth ETN and MILP are the favorable ways for the treatment of middledistal tibia fractures with obvious advantages in the short bone union, less postoperative complications as well as good function of the ankle joint. Therefore, ETN is much more suitable for the soft tissue injury of fracture.
Key words:  tibia fractures    fracture fixation    expert tibia nail    locking plate
               出版日期:  2018-06-26      发布日期:  2018-09-05      期的出版日期:  2018-06-26
ZTFLH:  R683.42  
基金资助: 上海市崇明区科学技术委员会项目(编号:CKY201503)
通讯作者:  王立新   
作者简介:  倪进荣,男,36岁,江苏省宿迁市第一人民医院骨科主治医师。
引用本文:    
倪进荣1,邓杰林1,王立新2. 专家型髓内钉与经皮锁定钢板治疗胫骨中下段骨折疗效比较[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2018, 22(3): 196-200.
NI Jinrong1, DENG Jielin1, WANG Lixin2. Effect Comparison on Internal Fixation of Expert Tibia Nail and Miniinvasive Percutaneous Locking Plate for Middledistal Tibia Fractures. Chinese Journal of Modern Operative Surgery, 2018, 22(3): 196-200.
链接本文:  
http://www.surgerychina.com/CN/10.16260/j.cnki.1009-2188.2018.03.009  或          http://www.surgerychina.com/CN/Y2018/V22/I3/196
[1] Joveniaux P, Ohl X, Harisboure A, et al. Distal tibia fractures: management and complications of 101 cases[J]. Int Orthop, 2010, 34(4):583588. doi: 10.1007/s002640090832z.
[2] Iqbal HJ, Pidikiti P. Treatment of distal tibia metaphyseal fractures; plating versus intramedullary nailing: a systematic review of recent evidence[J]. Foot Ankle Surg, 2013, 19(3):1431414317. doi: 10.1016/j.fas.2013.04.007.
[3] Yu J, Li L, Wang T, et al. Intramedullary nail versus plate treatments for distal tibial fractures: a metaanalysis[J]. Int J Surg, 2015, 16(Pt A):6068. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.02.004.
[4] Collinge C, Protzman R. Outcomes of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for metaphyseal distal tibia fractures[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2010, 24(1):2429. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181ac3426.
[5] Paluvadi SV, Lal H, Mittal D, et al. Management of fractures of the distal third tibia by minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis  A prospective series of 50 patients[J]. J Clin Orthop Trauma, 2014, 5(3):129136. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2014.07.010.
[6] 罗先正. 带锁髓内钉治疗四肢骨折的发展[J].中华骨科杂志,1997,17(4):219219.
[7] Horn J, Linke B, Hntzsch D, et al. Angle stable interlocking screws improve construct stability of intramedullary nailing of distaltibia fractures: a biomechanical study[J]. Injury, 2009, 40(7):767771. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2009.01.117.
[8] 林永绥, 王春, 刘成招, 等. ETN在胫骨干骺端骨折内固定治疗中的应用[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2012,27(4):356357.
[9] Taskesen A, Yaradilmis Y U, Ozdemir M,et al. Are clinical and functional results of MIPPO and IMN for treatment of extraarticular distal tibia fractures similar?[J]. J Turgut Ozal Med Cent,2017,24(4):413417.
[10] Kawalkar AC, Badole CM. Distal tibia metaphyseal fractures: Which is better, intramedullary nailing or minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis?[J]. Journal of Orthopaedics Trauma & Rehabilitation, 2018,24:6671.
[11] Wani IH, Ul Gani N, Yaseen M, et al. Operative management of distal tibial extraarticular fracturesintramedullary nail versus minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis[J]. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil, 2017, 19(6):537541. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0010.8045.
[12] 姚琦, 倪杰, 彭立彬, 等. 微创经皮钢板固定术与交锁髓内钉治疗胫骨远端关节外骨折疗效的观察[J]. 中华医学杂志, 2013, 93(47):37483751.
[1] 王振, 刘青, 郑福增, 李西要, 曲波, 董黎明. T型钢板在胫骨后pilon骨折中的应用#br#[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2018, 22(4): 281-284.
[2] 熊军, 刘韦, 黎早敏, 陈剑飞. 有或无牵引床辅助复位下股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗老年股骨转子间骨折#br#[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2018, 22(4): 274-276.
[3] 孙冶智,余磊,王伟,梁宏伟. 不同方式治疗踝关节骨折伴三角韧带完全断裂的临床效果观察[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2018, 22(1): 41-44.
[4] 史风雷1,王琨2,吕夫新1,孙正考1. 经皮内固定治疗复合创伤骨盆前环骨折[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(6): 428-431.
[5] 杨磊,王岩石. 跗骨窦入路与广泛外侧入路内固定术治疗跟骨骨折临床分析[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(5): 366-370.
[6] 李谋林,周智,尹文军,万里飞,喻赣鹏,宋瑞清. 切开复位内固定联合旋髂深血管束髂骨瓣移植治疗青壮年股骨颈骨折[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(5): 361-365.
[7] 曹建刚,张传开. 手法整复外固定术与切开复位内固定治疗B型踝关节骨折的早期临床效果比较[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(4): 296-300.
[8] 刘晓辉,张雷,谢获. 关节镜下空心螺钉治疗前交叉韧带胫骨止点撕脱骨折疗效观察[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(4): 292-295.
[9] 何家雄,吴征杰,曾焰辉,李灿辉. 线缆张力带内固定治疗髌骨粉碎性骨折[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(4): 288-291.
[10] 杨志刚, 甘霖, 叶俊星 . 切开复位锁定加压钢板内固定与闭合复位外固定支架固定治疗桡骨远端骨折的比较[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(3): 206-210.
[11] 黄金河,赵玉驰,王力刚,许军. PFNA、APFLP及InterTan髓内钉治疗高龄不稳定性转子间骨折临床效果比较[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(2): 136-140.
[12] 何勇,叶剑峰,简盛生. 不同固定方法对鹰嘴截骨术后肘关节功能的影响研究[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(2): 121-124.
[13] 孙敏,戚超,于腾波. 经膝关节镜引导小切口与传统内固定手术治疗胫骨平台骨折的疗效比较分析[J]. 中国现代手术学杂志, 2017, 21(1): 44-47.
[1] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 168 -173 .
[2] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 174 -177 .
[3] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 178 -181 .
[4] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 182 -186 .
[5] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 187 -190 .
[6] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 191 -193 .
[7] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 194 -196 .
[8] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 197 -200 .
[9] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 201 -205 .
[10] . [J]. Chinese journal of modern operative surgery, 2017, 21(3): 206 -210 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed