锁定加压钢板与外固定架治疗胫骨远端骨折对比分析.docVIP

锁定加压钢板与外固定架治疗胫骨远端骨折对比分析 　　【摘要】 目的 对比分析锁定加压钢板与外固定架治疗胫骨远端骨折的手术治疗效果， 从而为胫骨远端骨折的临床治疗提供进一步的指导依据。方法 应用锁定加压钢板治疗的30例胫骨远端骨折患者， 设立为锁定加压钢板组， 另选择同期行外固定架治疗的30例胫骨远端骨折患者设立为外固定架组， 比较两组的疗效， 以及手术时间、平均术中术后出血量、骨折愈合时间、术后随访期间并发症情况。结果 锁定加压钢板组的优良率90.0%， 外固定架组的优良率80.0%， 两组比较差异无统计学意义（P0.05）。锁定加压钢板组的手术时间、平均术中术后出血量、骨折愈合时间与外固定架组比较， 差异无统计学意义（P0.05）。锁定加压钢板组术后发生感染、骨折延迟愈合及畸形愈合等例数明显少于外固定架组， 两组比较差异有统计学意义（P0.05）。结论 锁定加压钢板与外固定架治疗胫骨远端骨折疗效相似， 但锁定加压钢板的术后并发症少， 因此， 临床医生应根据患者骨折的具体情况选择合适的固定方式。 　　【关键词】 胫骨远端骨折；锁定加压钢板；外固定架 　　DOI：10.14163/j.cnki.11-5547/r.2016.08.002 　　Comparative analysis of locking compression plate and external fixator in the treatment of distal tibial fracture LIU Qiang. Department of Orthopedics， Beijing Longfu Hospital， 100010， China 　　【Abstract】 Objective To compare and analyze curative effects by locking compression plate and external fixator in the treatment of distal tibial fracture， in order to provide further guidance and reference for clinical treatment of distal tibial fracture. Methods There were 30 patients with distal tibial fracture receiving locking compression plate for treatment as locking compression plate group， and another 30 patients receiving external fixator for treatment at the same period as external fixator group. Curative effects， operation time， average intraoperative and postoperative bleeding volume， fracture healing time， postoperative complications during follow-up were compared between the two groups. Results The locking compression plate group had good rate as 90.0%， and the external fixator group had that as 80.0%. Their difference had no statistical significance （P0.05）. There was no statistical significance in difference of operation time， average intraoperative and postoperative bleeding volume， and fracture healing time between the locking compression plate group and the external fixator group （P0.05）. The locking compression plate group had obviously less cases with postoperative infection， delayed union， and malunion than the external fixator gro