微创经皮钢板内固定与切开复位钢板内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折的疗效对比研究

Study on comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis with open reduction and internal fixation for treatment of distal tibia fracture

目的比较经皮微创钢板内固定术(MIPPO)与切开复位内固定(ORIF)治疗胫骨远端骨折的临床疗效。方法对86例胫骨骨折患者分为微创经皮钢板组与普通钢板组两种方法治疗,对比分析其术中及术后的一般情况,并对其各项指标进行统计学比较。结果 MIPPO治疗患者的出血量、骨折愈合时间明显小于ORIF治疗患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),但两组间手术时间、住院时间和术后功能评价差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。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,在骨折愈合时间和组织损伤方面,MIPPO技术更具有优势。

Objective To compare the clinical effect of minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis（MIPPO） with open reduction and internal fixation（ORIF） for treatment of distal tibia fractures.Methods Eighty six patients with distal tibia fracture were divided into MIPPO group and ORIF group.The general situation of patients in intraoperative and postoperative periods was analyzed,and their various indicators were statistically compared.Results The difference in amount of bleeding and duration for bone union between these two groups was significant（P 0.01）.But the difference in mean operating time,mean hospital stay and functional results was not significant（P 0.05）.Conclusion Both MIPPO and ORIF are safe and effective procedures for fixation of distal tibia fracture,but MIPPO is better with benefits of limited injury and shorter duration for fracture healing.