经皮锁定钢板与传统解剖钢板内固定治疗胫骨下段骨折的疗效对比
|
摘要
目的对比经皮锁定钢板与传统解剖钢板内固定用于胫骨下段骨折的疗效。方法经过对本院2016年3月至2018年3月收治的56例胫骨下段骨折患者临床资料展开回顾分析,随机分为两组各28例,对照组选择传统解剖钢板内固定,观察组选择经皮锁定钢板内固定,对比两组治疗总有效率以及手术指标。结果观察组治疗总有效率(96.43%)显著高于对照组(78.57%),P<0.05;观察组切口长度、术中出血量、手术时间、术后消肿时间、骨痂形成时间以及骨折愈合时间均优于对照组,P<0.05。结论对于胫骨下段骨折患者而言,选择经皮锁定钢板内固定可以显著地提升治疗效果、改善手术指标,值得推广应用。
Objective To compare the efficacy of percutaneous locking plate and traditional anatomical plate fixation for the lower humerus fracture. Methods The clinical data of 56 patients with lower humeral fractures admitted from March 2016 to March 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. They were randomly divided into two groups(28 cases in each group). The control group was selected by traditional anatomical plate fixation. The skin was locked in the plate and the total effective rate and surgical index were compared between the two groups. Results The total effective rate of the observation group(96.43%) was significantly higher than that of the control group(78.57%), P< 0.05. The incision length, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative swelling time, osteophyte formation time and fracture healing time were better than the control group, P< 0.05. Conclusion For patients with lower humeral fractures, the choice of percutaneous locking plate fixation can significantly improve the treatment effect and improve the surgical index, which is worthy of popularization and application.
Objective To compare the efficacy of percutaneous locking plate and traditional anatomical plate fixation for the lower humerus fracture. Methods The clinical data of 56 patients with lower humeral fractures admitted from March 2016 to March 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. They were randomly divided into two groups(28 cases in each group). The control group was selected by traditional anatomical plate fixation. The skin was locked in the plate and the total effective rate and surgical index were compared between the two groups. Results The total effective rate of the observation group(96.43%) was significantly higher than that of the control group(78.57%), P< 0.05. The incision length, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative swelling time, osteophyte formation time and fracture healing time were better than the control group, P< 0.05. Conclusion For patients with lower humeral fractures, the choice of percutaneous locking plate fixation can significantly improve the treatment effect and improve the surgical index, which is worthy of popularization and application.
引文
[1]周学文.经皮锁定钢板与传统解剖钢板治疗胫骨下段骨折对比分析[J].中国实用医药,2016,11(9):67-68.
[2]李开雄,邵玉凯,郑晓刚,等.经皮锁定钢板与传统解剖钢板内固定治疗胫骨下段骨折的比较[J].医药前沿,2017,7(9):147-148.
[3]邓伟.用经皮锁定钢板内固定术与传统解剖钢板内固定术治疗胫骨下段骨折的效果对比[J].当代医药论丛,2016,14(5):121-122.
[4]张录强.探讨经皮锁定钢板与传统解剖钢板内固定术治疗胫骨下段骨折的临床效果[J].世界最新医学信息文摘,2018,18(61):80-81.
[5]黄祚瑶.经皮锁定钢板与传统解剖钢板内固定治疗胫骨下段骨折的疗效对比[J].实用医院临床杂志,2018,15(04):158-160.
[6]陶高鑫,江浩,张静,等.经皮锁定钢板内固定术与传统解剖钢板内固定术治疗胫骨下段骨折疗效比较[J].华北理工大学学报(医学版),2017,19(06):440-442.
[7]蔡祥春,温子欢,张跃林.传统解剖钢板与经皮锁定钢板内固定治疗胫骨下段骨折患者的临床效果比较[J].当代医学,2017,23(24):168-170.
[8]赵序东.用经皮锁定钢板内固定术与传统解剖钢板内固定术治疗胫骨下段骨折的效果对比[J].临床医药文献电子杂志,2017,4(37):7188-7189.
[2]李开雄,邵玉凯,郑晓刚,等.经皮锁定钢板与传统解剖钢板内固定治疗胫骨下段骨折的比较[J].医药前沿,2017,7(9):147-148.
[3]邓伟.用经皮锁定钢板内固定术与传统解剖钢板内固定术治疗胫骨下段骨折的效果对比[J].当代医药论丛,2016,14(5):121-122.
[4]张录强.探讨经皮锁定钢板与传统解剖钢板内固定术治疗胫骨下段骨折的临床效果[J].世界最新医学信息文摘,2018,18(61):80-81.
[5]黄祚瑶.经皮锁定钢板与传统解剖钢板内固定治疗胫骨下段骨折的疗效对比[J].实用医院临床杂志,2018,15(04):158-160.
[6]陶高鑫,江浩,张静,等.经皮锁定钢板内固定术与传统解剖钢板内固定术治疗胫骨下段骨折疗效比较[J].华北理工大学学报(医学版),2017,19(06):440-442.
[7]蔡祥春,温子欢,张跃林.传统解剖钢板与经皮锁定钢板内固定治疗胫骨下段骨折患者的临床效果比较[J].当代医学,2017,23(24):168-170.
[8]赵序东.用经皮锁定钢板内固定术与传统解剖钢板内固定术治疗胫骨下段骨折的效果对比[J].临床医药文献电子杂志,2017,4(37):7188-7189.