支持钢板、锁定钢板治疗胫骨平台骨折的疗效比较  

Comparison of the Efficacy of Sustaining Plate vs.Locking Plate for the Treatment of Tibial Plateau Fracture

作　　者：谭海涛[1] 张朝跃[2] 曾跃林[1] 陈铖[1] 

机构地区：[1]解放军第163医院骨科,湖南长沙410003 [2]中南大学湘雅三医院骨科,湖南长沙410013

出　　处：《医学临床研究》2014年第5期966-969,共4页Journal of Clinical Research

摘　　要：【目的】对比分析锁定钢板（LP）和支持钢板（SP）内固定治疗胫骨平台骨折的疗效。【方法】收集胫骨平台骨折患者44例，其中 SP内固定19例（SP组），LP内固定25例（LP组），对比分析两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后伤口引流量、住院时间、骨折愈合时间及膝关节功能评定结果。【结果】两组患者住院时间、术后引流量比较无统计学差异（P＞0．05）；与 LP组比较，SP组术中出血量较多，手术时间、骨折愈合时间较长；LP组优良率92．00％，显著高于 SP组（78．94％），其差异有统计学意义（P＜0．05）。【结论】LP治疗胫骨平台骨折疗效优于 SP，主要表现在术中出血量、手术时间、骨折愈合时间和膝关节功能评分等指标。[Objective]To compared and analyze the efficacy of sustaining plate（SP）vs.locking plate（LP） for the treatment of tibial plateau fracture.[Methods]A total of 44 patients tibial plateau fracture were col-lected.Among them,19 patients underwent SP internal fixation（SP group）,while 25 patients underwent LP internal infixation（LP group）.The age,gender,inj ury status,type,operation time,blood loss,postoperative wound drainage volume,length of hospital stay,healing time of fracture and the rating results of knee joint function in 2 groups were compared and analyzed.[Results]There was no significant difference in gender con-stitution,average age,the combined inj ury,fracture type,hospitalization time and postoperative drainage vol-ume between two groups（P〉0.05）.Compared with LP group,intraoperative blood loss was more,and op-eration time and healing time were longer in SP group.The good and excellent rate in LP group was markedly higher than that in SP group（92.00% vs.78.94%）,and there was significant difference（P〈0.05）.[Con-clusion]LP for the treatment of tibial plateau fracture is better than SP.The main indexes are intraoperative blood loss,operation time,healing time of fracture and knee joint function score,etc.

关 键 词：胫骨骨折 外科学 骨折固定术 内 骨板 

分 类 号：R683.423[医药卫生—骨科学]