后路内固定治疗胸腰椎爆裂型骨折的比较  

Comparison of Internal Fixation for Treating Thoracolumbar Bursting Fractures by Posterior Approach

作　　者：徐东潭[1] 吉勇[1] 李涛[1] 王相利[2] 张克源 

机构地区：[1]淄博市中心医院骨科,山东255036 [2]华北煤炭医学院附院骨科,河北唐山063000 [3]淄牵总公司医院骨外科,山东255000

出　　处：《中国矫形外科杂志》2001年第9期867-869,共3页Orthopedic Journal of China

摘　　要：目的 :比较几种后路内固定治疗胸腰椎爆裂型骨折的效果。方法 :12 1例胸腰椎爆裂型骨折伴脊髓损伤的患者 ,随机分组 ,分别应用Harrington、Dick、RF、DRFS治疗胸腰椎爆裂型骨折 ,观察神经恢复及骨折复位内固定情况。结果 :经平均 4年 8个月的随访 ,Harrington、Dick、RF、DRFS治疗胸腰椎爆裂型骨折均有明显的复位固定作用 ,RF和DRFS在矫正后突畸形、恢复病椎高度上较Dick、Harrington更好 ,神经功能恢复上无明显差异。结论 :RF和DRFS复位固定效果上优于Dick、Harrington ,在临床应用上应根据病人的具体情况而定。Objective:To compare the outcomes of thoracolumbar bursting fractures treated by four kinds of internal fixation instrumentation (Harrington?Dick?RF system and DRFS). Methods: 121 Patients were randomized into Harrington group(25cases)?Dick group(29 cases)?RF group(19 cases) and DRSF group (49 cases). Radiographic and neurologic function evaluation were obtained on admission and postoperatively. Results: 121 patients were followed up for an average of 56 months. All the four kinds of methods got satisfactory reductive fixation, yet RF system and DRFS were more effective on kyphosis correction and the anterior body height recovery than Dick and Harrington. Conclusion: RF system and DRFS were superior to Dick and Harrington in effect on reductive fixation.

关 键 词：脊柱骨折 胸椎 腰椎 骨折固定术 内固定 

分 类 号：R683.2[医药卫生—骨科学]