普通钢板与普通梅花型髓内针治疗胫骨干骨折疗效对比分析  

A Comparative Analysis of the Treatment of Tibial Shaft Fracture Dealt with Common Plate or Common Plum shaped Intra medullary Nail.

作　　者：王德强 

机构地区：[1]河南省商城县人民医院骨科,465350

出　　处：《中国矫形外科杂志》2000年第1期30-32,共3页Orthopedic Journal of China

摘　　要：目的：对比分析普通钢板和普通梅花型髓内针手术治疗胫骨干骨折的疗效，为临床选择一个更好的治疗胫骨干骨折的方法。方法：把具有可比性的２ 组胫骨骨折分别采用普通钢板螺丝钉固定和普通梅花型髓内针固定，比较２组治疗结果。结果：４８ 例用普通钢板治疗的胫骨骨折，优良率６４ ．６ ％ 。４６ 例采用梅花型髓内针治疗的胫骨干骨折，优良率９１ ．３ ％ 。２ 者优良率比较（ Ｕ ＝ ３ ．３１ 　Ｐ＜ ０ ．０１） 有非常显著差异性。结论：普通钢板内固定术破坏了骨折端血运，存在应力遮挡和应力集中，失败率高。而普通梅花型髓内针固定损伤小，其生物力学特性更适合胫骨骨折愈合需要，成功率高。普通梅花型髓内针固定胫骨骨折明显优于普通钢板。Objective: To comparatively analyze the treatment of tibial shaft fracture by using common plate or common plum shaped intramedullary nail and choose a better method for the clinicians.Methods:94 cases of tibial shaft fracture were divided into two groups;48 cases were treated by common plate fixation,the other 46 cases treated by common plum shaped intramedullary nail,the effects were analysed. Results:the excellent rate of common plate fixation group was 64.6%;incontrast to 91.3% in common plum shaped intramedullary nail fixation group, it had significant difference(U=3.31 P<0.01).Conclusions:Commonplace fixation damaged fracture blood circulation,had stress shield and concentration of the stress.It's failure rate was high.The common plum shaped intramedullary nail fixation rendered less trauma.It's biomechanic feature was more suitable to the tibial fracture healing.The success rate was high.It is significantly superior than the common plate.

关 键 词：普通钢板 梅花型髓内针 胫骨骨折 治疗 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]