| 江亚 卞育俊 刘群 刘锴 吴刚△.双切口双钢板内固定与单侧锁定钢板内固定治疗复杂胫骨平台骨折的疗效比较[J].,2016,16(22):4332-4334 |
| 双切口双钢板内固定与单侧锁定钢板内固定治疗复杂胫骨平台骨折的疗效比较 |
| Effect Comparison of Double Incision Double Plate Internal Fixation andUnilateral Locking plate Internal Fixation in the Treatment of Complex TibialPlateau Fractures |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 双切口双钢板内固定 单侧锁定钢板内固定 复杂胫骨平台骨折 疗效 |
| 英文关键词: Double incision double plate internal fixation Unilateral locking plate internal fixation Complex tibial plateau fracture Effect |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 722 |
| 全文下载次数: 0 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的：研究比较双切口双钢板内固定（DIDPIF）与单侧锁定钢板内固定（ULPIF）治疗复杂胫骨平台骨折（CTPF）的疗效。方
法：从2010 年2 月至2015 年11 月选取在我院接受手术治疗的CTPF患者36 例作为研究对象，按随访数字表法平均分为观察组
和对照组，观察组接受DIDPIF术式治疗，对照组接受ULPIF 术式治疗，比较两组术后固定疗效、手术指标以及术后并发症。结果：
观察组术后固定的优良率是83.33%，与对照组的61.11%比较，差异不存在统计学意义（P＞0.05）。观察组骨折愈合的时间及下地
负重的时间均显著短于对照组，差异存在统计学意义（P＜0.05）。观察组固定术后总并发症的发生率是27.78%，与对照组的
38.89%比较，差异不存在统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论：DIDPIF术式与ULPIF术式均可较好地治疗CTPF患者，但DIDPIF术式在
骨折愈合的时间及下地负重的时间方面均优于ULPIF术式，且不会增加安全风险，值得推广应用。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective:To study and compare the effect of double incision double plate internal fixation (DIDPIF) and unilateral
locking plate internal fixation (ULPIF) in the treatment of complex tibial plateau fractures (DIDPIF).Methods:36 CTPF patients with
surgical treatment in our hospital from February 2010 to November 2015 were selected as the research objects, who were averagely
divided in two observation group and control group according to the random number table method, the observation group received
DIDPIF,and the control group received ULPIF, then compared the postoperative immobilization effect, operation indexes and
postoperative complications in two groups.Results:The excellent and good rate of the observation group was 83.33%, which had no
significantly different from61.11%of control group(P>0.05). The fracture healing time and time of loading of the observation group were
significantly shorter than control group, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The total incidence of postoperative
complications in the observation group was 27.78%, which had no significantly different from 38.89% in the control group(P>0.05).Conclusion:DIDPIF and ULPIF have the considerable effect in treatment CTPF patients, but DIDPIF could cut down the fracture healing
time and the time of loading than ULPIF, without safety risk increasing, it is worth popularizing. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
