两种方法治疗胫骨平台骨折临床疗效观察  

Therapeutic effects of two surgical methods on tibial plateau fracture

作　　者：张旭鹏[1] 袁彬[1] 王海洋[1] 王洪灵[1] 

机构地区：[1]安徽省涡阳县人民医院,安徽涡阳233600

出　　处：《中国医药科学》2013年第16期158-159,共2页China Medicine And Pharmacy

摘　　要：目的研究锁定钢板与普通解剖型钢板置人治疗胫骨平台骨折的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析我院2010年6月～2013年3月收治的56例胫骨平台骨折患者行手术治疗的临床资料，按治疗方式分为对照组（普通解剖钢板）和实验组（锁定钢板），术后比较两组病例临床疗效。结果锁定板组手术时间、术中失血量、骨折愈合时间、完全负重时间、住院时间均少于普通板组（P〈0．05）；术后12个月，锁定板组患者膝关节HSS评分平均（90．3±8．7）分、膝关节活动度平均（109．6±29．7）度，普通板组为（94．6±7．4）分、（110．4±24．3）度，两组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；根据Johner-Wruh评分结果，锁定板组患者治疗优良率（85．7％）明显高于普通板组（67．9％）（P〈0．05）。结论锁定钢板置入治疗胫骨平台骨折具有手术时间短、愈合快等优点，临床疗效优于普通解剖型钢板置入。Objective To compare the effects of Locking plate and common anatomical plate implantation in treating tibial plateau fractures. Methods 56 cases patients with tibial plateau fractures in our hospital from June 2010 to March 2013 were divided into control group（common anatomical plate） and experimental group（locking plate）, compared the efficacy of two groups after treatment. Results The racture healing time, full weight-bearing time of locking group were less than that of common group（P 〈 0.05）; In locking plate group,the mean HSS scores was （90.3 ± 8.7） points and the average ROM of affeeted knee joints was （109.6 ± 29.7）degrees, which were （94.6 ± 7.4） points and （110.4 ± 24.3）degrees in control group, there were no significant differerces between two groups（P 〉 0.05）; The excellent-rate of experimental group was higher than that of control group（P 〈 0.05）. Conclusion Locking plate in treating tibial plateau fracture has many advantages such as less operative time, quick recovery, which is better than the common anatomical Blare.

关 键 词：胫骨平台骨折 锁定钢板 普通解剖型钢板 

分 类 号：R658.3[医药卫生—外科学]