微创经皮钢板内固定与传统内固定治疗四肢骨折的疗效和安全性比较研究

Comparative Study on the Clinical Efficacy and Safety Between Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Plate Fixation and Traditional Plate Fixation in the Treatment of Limb Fractures

目的比较微创经皮钢板内固定与传统内固定治疗四肢骨折的疗效和安全性。方法选择2009年1月—2014年1月该院收治的四肢骨折患者80例,按照随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组,每组各40例。对照组采用传统钢板内固定治疗,观察组采用微创经皮钢板内固定治疗。对两组患者的手术时间、术后恢复时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合率、并发症发生率及临床疗效进行观察和比较。结果 1观察组的手术时间、术后恢复时间及术中出血量均明显少于对照组(P<0.05)。2观察组的骨折愈合率(100%)明显高于对照组(82.5%)(P<0.05)。3观察组的骨不连、感染及关节僵硬发生率明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。4观察组的优良率(95.0%)明显高于对照组(77.5%)(P<0.05)。结论微创经皮钢板内固定治疗四肢骨折,可明显缩短手术时间和术后恢复时间,减少术中出血量和并发症,提高临床疗效,值得临床推广与应用。

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety between minimally invasive percutaneous plate fixation and traditional plate fixation in the treatment of limb fractures. Methods 80 cases with limb fractures admitted in our hospital from January 2009 to January 2014 were selected and randomly divided into the control group and the observation group with 40 cases in each. The control group was given the traditional plate fixation, while the observation group was given minimally invasive percuta-neous plate fixation. The operation time, postoperative recovery time, blood loss in operation, the rate of fracture healing, the com-plication rate and clinical efficacy of patients in two groups were observed and compared. Results（1） The operation time, postoperative recovery time and blood loss in operation of patients in the observation group were significantly less than those in the control group（P〈0.05）.（2） The rate of fracture healing in the observation group（100%） was significantly higher than that in the control group（82.5%）（P〈0.05）.（3）The incidence of bone nonunion, infection and ankylosis of patients in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group（P〈0.05）.（4） The excellent-good rate of patients in the observation group（95.0%） was significantly higher than that in the control group（77.5%）（P〈0.05）. Conclusion Minimally invasive percutaneous plate fixation in the treatment of limb fractures can shorten operation time and postoperative recovery time, reduce intraoperative blood loss and complication rate, and enhance the clinical efficacy. It is worth applying and promoting in clinical practice widely.