带尾孔针缆与线缆环扎治疗髌骨骨折疗效比较

Tail needle cable vs cable cerclage in treatment of patellar fracture

目的比较带尾孔针缆及线缆环扎固定治疗髌骨骨折的临床疗效。方法 40例髌骨骨折患者中18例为采用带尾孔针缆系统治疗(针缆组),22例为采用线缆环扎固定治疗(线缆组)。结果手术时间:针缆组为40～56 min,线缆组为42～53 min,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);愈合时间:针缆组骨折为(10±2)周,线缆组为(14±2)周,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。针缆组随访10～17(12.00±4.34)个月,线缆组随访12～20(16.46±2.82)个月。参照Bostman标准评价疗效:针缆组优15例,良3例;线缆组优14例,良6例,差2例;两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组术后均未发生感染,无针脱出、断裂、线缆断裂、滑移、软组织刺激等并发症。结论带尾孔针缆系统治疗髌骨骨折较线缆环扎固定牢固,术后骨折愈合时间短,患膝功能恢复好。

Objective To compare the effect of tail needle cable and cable eerclage fixation in treatment of patella fractures of the clinical curative effect. Methods 40 cases of patellar fractures were enrolled, of which 18 cases were undergone treatment with tail needle cable system （needle line group） and 22 cable cerclage （cable group）. Results Needle line group of the operation time was 40 - 56 rain, cable group was 42 -53 min, there was no statis- tically significant difference （ P 〉 0. 05 ） ; Fracture healing time： Needle cable group was （ 10 ± 2） weeks, cable group of （ 14 ±2） weeks, the difference was statistically significant （P 〈0. 05） ; Needle line group were followed up for 10 - 17 （ 12. 00 ±4.34） months, cable group were followed up for 12 -20 （ 16. 46 ±2.82） months. Reference Bostman standard evaluation of curative effect, the needle rope group was excellent in 15 cases, good in 3; Cable group was excellent io 14 cases, good in 6,and poor in 2; The difference was statistically significant （P 〈 0. 05 ）. It had no infeetion pin pull out,fracture,cable rupture, slip, soft tissue stimulus, etc. Conclusions Tail needle treat- ment of patellar fracture with cable cerclage cable system provide firm fixation, and postoperative fi＇aeture healing time is short, which is beneficial for knee functional recovery.