全程使用与分阶段使用外固定架和石膏外固定治疗胫腓骨开放性骨折疗效比较  

A comparison between external fixation with external fixation apparatus in entire period with external fixation apparatus and plaster in different period for treatment of open fractures of tibia and fibula

作　　者：杨家辉[1] 郑晓明[1] 郭振河[1] 陈红梅[1] 程义权[1] 余伦红[1] 黎华茂[1] 

机构地区：[1]解放军161中心医院骨科,武汉430010

出　　处：《临床外科杂志》2001年第5期303-304,共2页Journal of Clinical Surgery

摘　　要：目的　探讨分阶段使用单侧多功能外固定架 (UMEFA )和石膏外固定治疗胫腓骨开放性骨折的疗效。方法　 89例胫腓骨开放性骨折经清创、骨折复位后均予以UMEFA外固定。然后 ,将其分 2组。A组 5 3例为全程骨外固定组 ,其中 8例因并发症较严重 ,中途拆除外固定架 ,其余 45例外固定维持至骨折愈合。B组 36例为临时骨外固定组 ,伤口愈合、肿胀消退、骨折纤维连接时拆除外固定架 ,改用长腿管状石膏外固定。结果　B组并发症的发生率为 8% ,显著低于A组40 % ( P <0 .0 1)。B组患者骨折愈合的平均时间为 2 13.6d ,显著低于A组 2 68.4d( P <0 .0 5 )。B组患者骨折愈合的优良率为 83% ,显著高于A组 60 % (P <0 .0 5 )。结论　分阶段使用外固定架和石膏外固定治疗胫腓骨开放性骨折 ,具有治疗效果好、骨折愈合快、并发症少等优点。Objective To study the results of treatment of open fracture of tibia and fibula by external fixation with unilateral multifunction external fixation apparatus(UMEFA) and plaster in different period. Methods 89 cases with open fracture of tibia and fibula had got reduction and external fixation with UMEFA and then divided into two groups, group A of 53 cases followed by external fixation with UMEFA, 8 cases of them were forced to remove UMEFA because of complications, the other 45 cases followed by external fixation with UMEFA till bone union, group B of 36 cases were removed UMEFA and changed with plaster when the skin was healed, the sweal was eliminated and the bone was steady. Compared and analyzed the results by complication, healing time and quality.Results In group B, there was less complications(P<0.01), healing time was shorter(P<0.05), and quality was better(P<0.05). Conclusion External fixation with UMEFA and plaster in different period is more effective in treatment of open fractures of tibia and fibula, there is less complication, the fracture heals faster and the quality is better.

关 键 词：胫腓骨骨折 外固定架 治疗 石膏 

分 类 号：R683.42[医药卫生—骨科学]