单侧多功能外固定支架固定与加压钢板内固定治疗胫骨骨折疗效对比分析  

Comparative Analysis of Curative Effect between Unilateral external fixator and Compressed Plate Internal Fixation in Treating Tibial Fracture

作　　者：林卓锋[1] 杨云海[1] 熊文华[1] 

机构地区：[1]深圳市宝安区石岩人民医院骨科,深圳518000

出　　处：《成都医学院学报》2012年第3期456-457,共2页Journal of Chengdu Medical College

摘　　要：目的对比单侧多功能外固定支架治疗与内固定治疗胫骨骨折的临床疗效。方法选取我院2008年3月-2010年3月间收治的114例胫骨骨折患者为治疗组,采用切开复位单侧多功能外固定支架治疗,设同期收的采用加压钢板内固定治疗63例为对照组,对比两组患者手术时间、手术切口长度,术后骨愈合情及术后并发症发生情况。结果两组患者随访4～18mo,治疗组手术时间、手术切口长度、骨折愈合时间、并发症均低于对照组,组间比较有显著差异(P<0.05)。结论单侧多功能外固定架治疗胫腓骨新鲜骨折疗效显著,临床应推广应用。Objective To compare the clinical effects of unilateral external fixator and compressed plate internal fixation in treating tibial fracture. Methods 114 cases of tibial fracture patients admitted to our hospital from March 2008 to March 2010 were chosen as treatment group. They were treated with open-reduction unilateral multifunctional external fixation. 63 patients admitted in the same period that treated with compression plate fixation were set as control group. The operative time, incision length, postoperative bone healing and postoperative complications in two groups were observed for comparison. Results The patients were followed up for 4-18 m. In treatment group, operative time, incision length, fracture healing time, complications were lower than those in the control group. The difference between two groups was multifunctional external fixation has remarkable effects clinical popularization and application. statistically significant（P〈0. 05）. Conclusion Unilateral in treating tibia and fibula fresh fractures. It is worthy of

关 键 词：胫骨折 内固定 外固定 

分 类 号：R683.42[医药卫生—骨科学]