|
|
|
| Clinical Effect of Traditional Open Reduction and Percutaneous Minimally Invasive Locking Plate in the Treatment of Middle and Lower Tibial Fractures |
| FAN Li-hong |
| Yangzhou Hospital of traditional Chinese Medicine, Jiangsu Yangzhou 225000 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract 【Objective】To investigate the clinical effect of traditional open reduction and percutaneous minimally invasive locking plate in the treatment of middle and lower tibial fractures.【Methods】The clinical data of 93 cases of middle and lower tibial fracture treated in our hospital from May 2014 to February 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different treatment methods, the patients were divided into minimally invasive group (n=54) and open group (n=39). The open group was treated with conventional open reduction and common plate internal fixation. The minimally invasive group was treated with percutaneous minimally invasive locking plate internal fixation. The perioperative conditions (operation time, incision length, intraoperative bleeding volume, hospital stay, fracture healing time), complications, ankle joint and knee joint function were compared between the two groups.【Results】The operation time, hospital stay and fracture healing time of the minimally invasive group were shorter than those of the open group, incision length was shorter than that of the open group, and the amount of bleeding during operation was less than that of the open group, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The incidence of complications in the minimally invasive group was lower than that in the open group (P<0.05). The excellent and good rates of ankle and knee joint function in minimally invasive group were 83.33% and 90.74% respectively, which were higher than those in open group (69.23% and 74.36%, P<0.05 and P<0.05).【Conclusion】Compared with conventional open reduction and conventional plate internal fixation, percutaneous minimally invasive locking plate internal fixation has better clinical effect, fewer complications and better functional recovery of ankle and knee joint, which is worthy of clinical promotion.
|
|
Received: 31 May 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 戚浩天,李卫康,赵永杰,等.两种方法治疗胫骨远端关节外骨折疗效比较[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2013,27(11):1286-1290.
[2] 吴刚,罗晓中,谭伦锁,等.定加压接骨板皮外固定与传统外固定支架治疗胫骨开放性骨折的疗效对比研究[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2013,27(11):1291-1295.
[3] Collinge C,Protzman R.Outcomes of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for metaphyseal distal tibia fractures[J].J Orthop Trauma,2010,24(1):24-29.
[4] 肖志林,周明昌,冯经旺,等.微创经皮钢板接骨术结合锁定加压钢板与切开复位解剖型钢板内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折的疗效比较[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2014,16(1):91-92.
[5] 孟庆涛,张辉,丁中华,等.两种方法治疗较短胫骨远端干骺端骨折的疗效比较[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2013,21(2):119-122.
[6] 严广斌,膝关节评分标准[J].中华关节外科杂志,2010,4(6):845.
[7] Demiralp B, Atesalp AS, Bozkurt M,et al.Spiral and oblique fractures of distal one third of tibia fibular:treatment results with circular external fixator[J].Ann Acad Med Singapore,2007, 36(4): 267-271.
[8] 余洋,陈伟凯,崔伟,等. 微创弹性髓内钉结合外固定支架治疗粉碎性闭合胫腓骨干骨折[J].中国骨伤,2015,28(5):412-416.
[9] 邵峰.经皮锁定钢板与传统解剖钢板内固定对胫骨下段骨折的治疗效果观察[J].中国伤残医学,2017,25(15):38-40.
[10] 孟庆涛,张辉,丁中华,等. 两种方法治疗较短胫骨远端干骺端骨折的疗效比较[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2013,21(2):119-122.
[11] 林健,王秋根,黄建华,等. 辅助钢板结合扩髓交锁髓内钉治疗胫骨中上段多段骨折[J].北京大学学报(医学版),2013,45(5):717-722.
[12] 肖志林,周明昌,冯经旺,等.微创经皮钢板接骨术结合锁定加压钢板与切开复位解剖型钢板内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折的疗效比较[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2014,16(1):91-92.
[13] 牛宏伟.解剖型钢板治疗的胫骨远端骨折的效果分析[J].中外健康文摘,2013,10(14):170.
[14] 陈义明,汪剩勇,邹鹏飞.解剖钢板内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折[J].当代医学,2013,20(12):104-105. |
|
|
|
2020, Vol. 37 
