微创经皮和有限切开复位锁定加压钢板治疗胫骨骨折的疗效比较  

Efficacy Comparison of Minimally Invasive Percutaneous and Limited Open Reduction Pressure Plate Osteosynthesis in the Treatment of Tibial Fractures

作　　者：王坤[1] 刘德昌[1] 

机构地区：[1]复旦大学附属金山医院骨科,上海201508

出　　处：《中国临床医学》2012年第3期270-271,共2页Chinese Journal of Clinical Medicine

摘　　要：目的:比较微创经皮钢板内固定(minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis,MIPPO)与有限切开复位锁定加压钢板(locking compression plate,LCP)内固定治疗胫骨骨折的疗效。方法:回顾分析2006年2月—2010年9月接受MIPPO治疗的胫骨骨折患者42例(MIPPO组)以及接受有限切开复位LCP内固定治疗的胫骨骨折患者62例(有限切开组)的临床资料,比较其手术过程及治疗效果。结果:所有病例均获得随访,平均随访时间为12个月(6～20个月)。有限切开组的平均手术时间显著短于MIPPO组,而有限切开组的术后疗效与MIPPO组相比无显著差异。结论:MIPPO较有限切开复位LCP内固定治疗胫骨骨折手术难度大,但两者疗效无显著差异。Objective：To compare the efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation using locking compression plate （LCP） and minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis（MIPPO） in tibial fractures. Methods：The clinical data of 42 cases of tibial fractures undergoing MIPPO （MIPPO group） and 62 cases undergoing open reduction and internal fixation using locking compression plate （LCP group） were retrospectively studied. Results： The operation time was less in the LCP group than in the MIPPO group. All patients have been followed up for an average period of 12 months （from 6 to 20 months）. There was no significant difference in the curative effect between the LCP group and the MIPPO group. Conclusions： MIPPO require more surgery skills than the traditional open reduction and internal fixation using locking compression plate. However, there are no significant difference between the efficacy of them in tibial fractures.

关 键 词：微创 锁定加压钢板 胫骨骨折 

分 类 号：R683.42[医药卫生—骨科学]