|
|
|
| To Compare and Analyze the Clinical Effects and Indications of 43-A Tibial Fracture (AO Type) Treatment by Different Methods: Percutaneous Minimally Invasive Osteosynthesis, External Fixation and Expert Intramedullary Nail |
| YU Hong-jin, YIN Xin-zhe |
| Department of Orthopeadic Surgery, Xi'an Gaoxin Hospital, Xi'an 710075 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract 【Objective】To compare and analyze the clinical effects and indications of 43-A tibial fracture (AO type) treatment by MIPPO (minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis), external fixation and ETN (expert intramedullary nail). 【Methods】From April 2017 to October 2019, 128 patients with tibial fracture who were treated by operation in our hospital were selected as the research objects. According to the different treatment methods, they were divided into three groups: percutaneous minimally invasive plate (42 cases in group A), external fixation frame (43 cases in group B) and expert intramedullary nail fixation (43 cases in group C). The operation time, intraoperative hemorrhage, fracture healing time and hospitalization time were compared among the three groups. X-ray examination was performed at 1, 3 and 6 months after operation. The AOFAS score, the rate of excellent scoring function and the incidence of postoperative complications were compared among the three groups. 【Results】The bleeding volume and fracture healing time in group B were higher than those in group A and group C (P<0.05), and the operation time in group B was significantly lower than that in group A and group C (P<0.05); The excellent rate of scoring ankle function and AOFAS score in group B were significantly lower than those in group A and C (P<0.05); there was no statistical significance in the total incidence of complications among the three groups (P>0.05). 【Conclusion】Three kinds of surgical methods have certain therapeutic effect on the patients with AO 43-A tibial fracture. The first choice is internal fixation. For the patients who are not suitable for internal fixation, the distal cross nail is used to avoid external fixation across the ankle joint.
|
|
Received: 24 May 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 陈安富, 唐旭东, 黄凯. 髓内钉与钢板内固定治疗成人胫骨干远端骨折的疗效比较[J].中华创伤骨科杂志, 2019, 21(8):706-709.
[2] 王欣. 临时外固定支架转换内固定分期治疗胫骨干开放性骨折[J].中华创伤骨科杂志, 2018, 20(8):661-665.
[3] 刘涛. 双反牵引一期微创治疗同侧股骨骨折合并胫骨平台骨折[J].中华创伤骨科杂志, 2017, 19(10):840-845.
[4] 舒衡生, 石博文, 沈义东,等. 外固定辅助内固定矫正膝关节周围畸形[J].中华骨科杂志, 2019, 39(1):10-16.
[5] 马洪冬, 鲁志超, 殷大利, 等. 保守与全螺纹空心螺钉治疗第五跖骨Ekrol 2型骨折的疗效比较[J].中华骨科杂志, 2018, 38(21):1307-1313.
[6] WANI I H, GANI N U, YASEEN M, et al. Operative management of distal tibial extra-articular fractures-intramedullary nail versus minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis[J].Randomized Controlled Trial,2017, 19(6):537-541.
[7] 哈力?哈布力汗, 杨毅, 努尔哈那提?沙依兰别克,等. 髓内钉与钢板治疗成人胫骨远端骨折的Meta分析[J].中华创伤骨科杂志, 2018, 20(2):112-117.
[8] 王远政, 陈龙, 佘荣峰,等. 髌上入路与髌下入路髓内固定治疗胫骨骨折疗效的Meta分析[J].中华创伤杂志, 2019, 35(8):742-749.
[9] 林斌, 陈志达, 吴进, 等. 自行研制的胫骨可调负重支具在AO分型42-B型胫骨干骨折髓内钉固定术后的应用[J].中华创伤骨科杂志, 2017, 19(1):47-53.
[10] 乔锋, 李涤尘, 靳忠民,等. 3D打印外固定架治疗胫骨骨折的临床应用[J].中华骨科杂志, 2019, 39(1):23-29.
[11] CEMIL E, ALTAY M A, ALTAY N, et al. The effect of 2 different surgical methods on intracompartmental pressure value in tibial shaft fracture: An experimental study in a rabbit model[J].Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg,2017, 23(2):85-90.
[12] 焦勤, 董良超, 王林, 等. 空心螺钉内固定治疗青少年胫骨远端骨骺骨折的疗效观察[J].中华实用儿科临床杂志, 2016, 31(23):1809-1812.
[13] 柴明祥, 赵斌, 张文武,等. 三种固定方法治疗AO分型43-A型胫骨骨折的疗效比较[J].中华创伤骨科杂志, 2016,21(7):579-585.
[14] 董文伟, 毛海蛟, 姚立炜, 等. 胫骨牵引架在股骨远端骨折经皮微创钢板内固定中的应用[J].中华骨科杂志, 2018, 38(22):1357-1365.
[15] 梁海涛, 朱恒杰, 李成存,等. MIPPO,ETN和外固定支架固定方法治疗AO分型43-A型胫骨骨折的临床疗效[J].骨科临床与研究杂志, 2017,4(4):56-60. |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 38 
