微创钢板接骨技术下锁定加压接骨板与动力加压钢板内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折的疗效比较  

Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis for distal tibial fractures: comparison of locking and dynamic compression plate fixation

作　　者：陈劲[1] 钟华[1] 马肃霜[1] 肖刚[1] 梁波[1] 李德强[1] 阮国强[1] 郑荣[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东省湛江中心人民医院骨三科,广东湛江524037

出　　处：《广东医学院学报》2015年第3期304-306,共3页Journal of Guangdong Medical College

摘　　要：目的比较在微创钢板接骨（MIPPO）技术下应用锁定加压接骨板（LCP）和动力加压钢板（DCP）内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折的疗效。方法 68例胫骨远端骨折患者分为LCP组和DCP组,每组34例。在MIPPO技术下闭合复位后,分别经皮插入LCP、DCP进行内固定,评价临床效果,功能评估按Johner-Wruhs胫骨骨折评分评价疗效。结果 68例均获得随访,随访时间8-14个月,平均12.5个月。DCP组1例钢板断裂,行二次手术治疗;2例出现愈合延迟。LCP组和DCP组住院时间、手术时间及术中出血量差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。LCP组Johner-Wruhs评分优于DCP组（Hc=4.088,P〈0.05）。结论 MIPPO技术下LCP应力遮挡效应较小,骨膜血运破坏较少,有利于肢体功能恢复。Objective To compare combined locking compression plate（LCP） and dynamic compression plate（DCP） fixation with minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis（MIPPO） for distal tibial fractures. Sixty-eight Methods patients with distal tibial fractures were randomized to operative stabilization either by MIPPO with LCP（n=34） or DCP（n=34）. Clinical efficacy and Johner-Wruhs scores were compared between 2 groups. All Resultscases were followed up at 8-14 months（average, l2.5 months）. In DCP group, 1 case underwent the second operation due to plate breakage and 2 cases presented with delayed healing. There were no differences in the hospitalization, operation time and blood loss between two groups（P〈0.05）, but Johner-Wruhs scores in LCP group were superior to those in DCP group（P〈0.05）. MIPPO with LCP Conclusion is beneficial for limb functional recovery in patients with distal tibial fractures because of less stress shielding effect and periosteal blood supply damage.

关 键 词：MIPPO 胫骨远端骨折 内固定术 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]