两种内固定方法治疗股骨中远端骨折比较.docVIP

两种内固定方法治疗股骨中远端骨折的比较 　　【摘要】 目的 对比应用LISS板和解剖板内固定治疗股骨中远端骨折的效果。方法 62例股骨中远端骨折患者， 其中应用LISS板内固定治疗的32例作为LISS板组， 应用解剖板内固定治疗的30例作为解剖板组， 比较两组的治疗效果。结果 术后随访8个月～2年， 平均随访12个月；两种内固定方法在骨折愈合时间、骨折愈合率方面比较差异无统计学意义（P0.05）；在手术时间、切口长度、术中出血量、膝关节功能评分以及并发症发生率方面比较差异有统计学意义（P0.05）。结论 LISS板治疗股骨中远端骨折取得了良好的临床效果， 较之解剖板， 它较好地解决了股骨中远端骨折的稳定性， 保护了骨折周围的软组织血运， 促进骨折的愈合， 减少骨不连、关节感染等并发症， 创伤小， 有利于膝关节功能恢复， 提高了治疗效果， 但LISS板价格昂贵， 不利于广泛应用， 同时在取出时由于钉板锁定， 可能导致取出困难， 有待进一步研究。 　　【关键词】 股骨；中远端骨折；内固定；LISS板；解剖板 　　DOI：10.14163/j.cnki.11-5547/r.2015.16.012 　　【Abstract】 Objective To compare the effects between LISS plate and anatomical plate in internal fixation treatment of middle and distal femur fracture. Methods Among 62 patients with middle and distal femur fracture， there were 32 cases of them receiving LISS plate for internal fixation treatment as LISS plate group， and the other 30 cases receiving anatomical plate for internal fixation treatment as anatomical plate group. Curative effects of the two groups were compared. Results Follow-up lasted for 8 months～2 years after operation， with an average as 12 months. The differences of fracture healing time and healing rate between the two internal fixation methods had no statistical significance （P0.05）. Their differences of operation time， incision length， intraoperative bleeding volume， knee joint function score， and incidence of complications had statistical significance （P0.05）. Conclusion LISS plate provides good clinical effect in treating middle and distal femur fracture. Compared with anatomical plate， LISS plate can provide stability for middle and distal femur fracture， protect soft tissue blood supply around fracture， promote healing， and reduce complications of ununion and joint infection， with small invasion. This method is helpful for knee joint function recovery， and it can also improve curative effect. LISS plate however is too expensive to be widely applied， and its locked plate may cause difficulty in removing. This method is still needed further res