环锯法植骨术与传统切开植骨术治疗骨不连的疗效比较  

Comparative study of therapeutic effect between trepan-method for bone grafting and traditional incision bone grafting for the treatment of nonunion

作　　者：周英杰[1] 马虎升[1] 石福明[1] 赵庆安[1] 郭艳幸[1] 史相钦[1] 李立新[1] 

机构地区：[1]洛阳正骨医院正骨研究所,河南洛阳471002

出　　处：《中国骨伤》2005年第3期140-141,共2页China Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

摘　　要：目的:比较小切口环锯法植骨术和传统切开植骨术治疗四肢陈旧性骨折骨不连疗效的优越性。方法:110例四肢陈旧性骨折骨不连患者,按随机方法,实验组与对照组1∶2原则进行分组,实验组38例,对照组72例,实验组采用小切口环锯法植骨术,对照组采用传统切开植骨术,手术后观察和比较两组骨不连患者骨折愈合所需时间。结果:实验组骨折愈合时间(5. 5 0±2 . 37)个月,对照组骨折愈合时间(9. 0 0±5 . 32 )个月;实验组和对照组采用成组t检验,P <0 . 0 5 ,差异有显著性意义,说明实验组比对照组骨折愈合时间短。结论:小切口环锯法植骨术比传统的切开植骨术疗效好。Objective:To compare the advantages of trepan-method for bone grafting(TMBG)through a small incision and traditional incision bone grafting(TIBG)in the therapeutic effect on nonunion of old fracture in extremities.Methods:According to random method,one hundred and ten patients of nonunion of old fracture in extremities were taken as the experimental group and the control group.Thiry-eight patients of the experimental group were treated by TMBG through a small incision,the seventy-two patients of the control group were treated by TIBG,the fracture healing time of the two groups were observed and compared postoperatively.Results:The fracture-healing time of the experimented and the control groups were(5.50±2.37)and(9.00±5.32)months,respectively.Through the grouping t -test,the difference of these two groups was significant( P <0.05),suggesting that the experimental group had shorter fracture-healing time than that of the control.Conclusion:The therapeutic effect of TMBG through a small incision is better than that of TIBG.

关 键 词：植骨术 环锯法 切开 传统 疗效比较 治疗 陈旧性骨折骨不连 骨折愈合时间 对照组 实验组 手术后观察 成组t检验 小切口 随机方法 0.05 优越性 显著性 患者 四肢 

分 类 号：R683.42[医药卫生—骨科学] R681.55[医药卫生—外科学]