64例骨缺损微创植骨术与开放植骨术治疗的临床疗效比较  

作　　者：朱怡[1] 谭光华[1] 

机构地区：[1]南华大学附属第二医院,湖南421001

出　　处：《当代医学》2015年第12期28-29,共2页Contemporary Medicine

摘　　要：目的探讨微创植骨术与开放植骨术治疗骨缺损的临床治疗效果。方法选取64例骨缺损患者资料进行分析,根据病例资料将患者分为微创组(采用微创植骨术)和开放组(采用开放植骨术),各32例。比较2组患者术后骨密度检查结果、手术时间、出血量及住院时间。结果微创组第1周骨密度为(0.126±0.031)g/cm3、第4周骨密度检查为(0.138±0.007)g/cm3、第8周骨密度检查为(0.249±0.051)g/cm3,显著高于开放组(P<0.05);微创组总有效率为81.25%,显著高于开放组(53.13%)(P<0.05);微创组手术时间为(42.0±5.0)min、住院时间为(5.0±1.0)d,显著少于开放组(P<0.05);微创组出血量为(65.0±10.0)m L,显著高于开放组(P<0.05)。结论骨缺损治疗过程中采用微创植骨术治疗效果理想,值得推广使用。Objective To investigate the minimally invasive surgery and bone grafting in the treatment of bone defects open clinical effect. Methods 64 patients bone defect data November 2010 - November 2013 admitted for analysis, patients were divided according to clinical data will be minimally invasive group （minimally invasive bone grafting） and open group （with an open bone grafting） postoperative bone density test results comparing two groups of patients, operative time, blood loss and hospital stay.Results BMD of the ifrst week of the minimally invasive group （0.126±0.031） g / cm^3, the fourth week to check for bone density （0.138＆#177;0.007） g / cm3, the ifrst 8 weeks to check for bone mineral density （0.249±0.051） g / cm^3, signiifcantly higher than the open group （P〈0.05）; minimally invasive total effective rate was 81.25%, signiifcantly higher than the open group （53.1%） （P〈0.05）; minimally invasive operative time was （42.0±5.0） min hospitalization time was （5.0±1.0） days, signiifcantly less than the open group （P〈0.05）; the amount of bleeding for the minimally invasive group （65.0±10.0） mL was signiifcantly higher than the open group （P〈0.05）.Conclusion The treatment of bone defects in minimally invasive treatment of bone grafting ideal, should be introduced.

关 键 词：微创植骨术 开放植骨术 骨缺损 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]