体外整复结合微创经皮入路与Wiltse入路结合伤椎置钉在治疗胸腰椎骨折的临床应用对比分析及价值分析  

Comparative analysis of clinical application and value of external reduction combined with minimally invasive percutaneous approach and Wiltse approach combined with pedicle screw placement in injured vertebrae in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures

作　　者：汪晓宁[1] 徐东[1] 何燕飞[1] 廖云 李政[1] Wang Xiaoning;Xu Dong;He Yanfei;Liao Yun;Li Zheng(The First Orthopedic Department,the People's Hospital of Jinniu District,Chengdu City,Sichuan Chengdu 610000)

机构地区：[1]成都市金牛区人民医院骨一科,四川成都610000

出　　处：《中国社区医师》2021年第27期37-38,共2页Chinese Community Doctors

基　　金：成都市卫生健康委员会(编号:2019003)。

摘　　要：目的:对比分析体外整复结合微创经皮入路与Wiltse入路结合伤椎置钉治疗胸腰椎骨折的临床效果。方法:将收治的70例胸腰椎骨折患者随机分为对照组和观察组,各35例。对照组实施体外整复结合微创经皮入路附加伤椎置钉内固定术;观察组实施体外整复结合Wiltse入路附加伤椎置钉内固定术。比较两组疗效。结果:对照组手术切口长度小于观察组,术中出血量及术后VAS评分均低于观察组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);对照组手术时间长于观察组,术中透视次数多于观察组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组治疗后伤椎高度明显提高,治疗后Cobb角明显下降,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),但组间治疗后伤椎高度及Cobb角比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:两组均安全有效,其中对照组出血少,损伤小,术后疼痛缓解明显,但技术要求较高,观察组技术要求相对较低,适合基层。Objective:To compare and analyze the clinical effect of external reduction combined with minimally invasive percutaneous approach and Wiltse approach combined with injured vertebra screw placement in the treatment of thoracolumbar fractures.Methods:70 patients with thoracolumbar fractures were randomly divided into control group and observation group,35 cases in each group.Control group was treated with external reduction combined with minimally invasive percutaneous approach plus pedicle screw fixation;Observation group was treated with external reduction combined with Wiltse approach plus pedicle screw fixation.The curative effects of the two groups were compared.Results:the length of incision in control group was shorter than that in observation group,the amount of bleeding and VAS score in control group were lower than those in observation group(P<0.05);The operation time of control group was longer than that of observation group,and the number of fluoroscopy was more than that of observation group(P<0.05).After treatment,the vertebral height and Cobb angle of the two groups increased significantly(P<0.05),but there was no significant difference between the two groups(P>0.05).Conclusion:both groups are safe and effective,in which control group has less bleeding,less injury and obvious postoperative pain relief,but the technical requirements are higher;The technical requirements of observation group are relatively low,which is suitable for grassroots.

关 键 词：体外整复 微创经皮 WILTSE 胸腰椎骨折 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]