微创内固定技术与切开复位内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折的效果比较  

Clinical Effect Comparison of Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Plate Osteosynthesis and Open Reduction and Internal Fixation in the Treatment of Distal Tibial Fracture

作　　者：刘剑军[1] 闵智熔 谢静波[1] 肖义兵 鄢秋元[1] 

机构地区：[1]江西省丰城市人民医院,江西丰城331100

出　　处：《中国医学创新》2015年第28期32-34,共3页Medical Innovation of China

摘　　要：目的:比较微创经皮钢板内固定(MIPPO)技术与切开复位内固定(ORIF)治疗胫骨远端骨折的临床效果。方法:选取本院2012年5月-2014年5月接受治疗的胫骨远端骨折患者60例,根据手术方式不同分为MIPPO组和ORIF组,每组各30例,比较两组的疗效。结果:两组患者住院时间相比较差异无统计学意义;MIPPO组手术时间短于ORIF组,切口长度小于ORIF组,术中出血量少于ORIF组,骨折恢复时间短于ORIF组,疗效优良率高于ORIF组,并发症发生率明显低于ORIF组,比较差异均有统计学意义(P<O.05)。结论:MIPPO技术与ORIF技术均是治疗胫骨远端骨折的有效固定方式,但MIPPO治疗胫骨远端骨折时患者出血量少、手术时间短、并发症少、恢复快,效果较好,更具有临床研究价值和推广应用意义。Objective： To compare the clinical effect of minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis （ MIPPO ） and open reduction and internal fixation （ ORIF ） in the treatment of distal tibial fracture. Method： 60 patients with distal tibial fracture treated in our hospital from May 2012 toMay 2014 were selected and divided into ORIF group and MIPPO group with 30 cases in each group, who were treated by ORIF and MIPPO respectively, the clinical efficacy was compared between the two groups.Result： There was no significant statistical difference between the two groups in hospitalization. Operation time, length of incision, fracture recovery time of the MIPPO group was shorter than that of the ORIF group, blood loss was less, excellent and good rate of the clinical efficacy was higher, the incidence of complication was lower, the differences were statistically significant （ P〈0.05 ） . Conclusion： Both MIPPO and ORIF are safe and effective procedures for fixation of distal tibia fracture, while MIPPO is advantageous with less bleeding, shorter operation time, lower complication, rapid postoperative recovery, better clinical efficacy in treating distal tibia fracture compared with ORIF, which worthy of better being studied and promoted in clinic.

关 键 词：胫骨远端骨折 微创经皮钢板内固定 切开复位钢板内固定 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]