期刊文献+

低强度脉冲超声波治疗新鲜下肢骨骨折的病例对照研究 被引量:4

Case-control Study of the Low-intensity Pulsed Ultrasound Treatment for Fresh Diaphyseal Fractures of the Lower Limbs
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的研究低强度脉冲超声(low-intensity pulsed ultrasound,LIPUS)促进新鲜下肢骨骨折愈合的作用。方法采用病例对照的研究方法,根据是否使用LIPUS治疗将99例新鲜下肢骨骨折患者分为LIPUS治疗组和对照组。术后LIPUS治疗组每日治疗15 min,对照组仅用石膏托固定。对LIPUS治疗组与对照组骨折愈合时间进行总体比较,并对骨折侧位、骨折位置、骨折类型、软组织损伤类型及外科治疗方式下的亚组结果进行分析比较。结果 LIPUS治疗组骨折部位的平均愈合时间为(4.44±2.19)个月,短于对照组的平均愈合时间(5.04±2.96)个月,但组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。粉碎性骨折患者经LIPUS治疗后平均愈合时间为(4.73±2.25)个月,显著短于对照组的(6.73±2.37)个月(P=0.025)。结论 LIPUS能够有效地促进术后新鲜下肢骨粉碎性骨折的愈合。 Objective To investigate the effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound( LIPUS) treatment for fresh diaphyseal fractures of the lower limbs. Methods A case-control study was performed in 99 fresh diaphyseal fractures of the lower limbs patients. All subjects were divided into the LIPUS group and the control group according to the treatment choice of LIPUS. After operation,the LIPUS group were immobilized by plaster and received LIPUS for 15 min daily,and the control group were only immobilized by plaster. An overall comparison was performed between the LIPUS group and the control group,as well as subgroup analysis in items of the fracture lateral,fracture sites,fracture types,soft tissue conditions,and fixation methods between the groups. Results The average fracture healing time of LIPUS group was( 4. 44 ± 2. 19) months,and the control group was( 5. 04 ± 2. 96) months. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups.Clinical fracture-healing time of comminuted fracture in LIPUS group was( 4. 73 ± 2. 25) months,which was significantly shorter than that in control group,( 6. 73 ± 2. 37) months( P = 0. 025). Conclusion LIPUS is effective for surgically managed,fresh,comminuted fracture healing of the lower limbs.
出处 《中国现代手术学杂志》 2016年第1期41-43,共3页 Chinese Journal of Modern Operative Surgery
关键词 超声疗法 骨折 ultrasonic therapy fractures
  • 相关文献

参考文献9

  • 1朱新炜,李云恺,左金良,高浩源,邱思强.股骨远端C型骨折锁定钢板内固定术后不愈合的原因及治疗体会[J].实用医学杂志,2012,28(4):618-619. 被引量:23
  • 2Tobita K, Matsumoto T, Ohashi S, et al. Effect of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound stimulation on gap healing ina rabbit osteotomy model evaluated byquantitative micro-computed tomography-based cross-sectional moment of inertia [ J ]. J Orthop Sci, 2012,17 (4) : 470-476. doi: 10. 1007/s00776-012-0233-9.
  • 3Johnstone D J, Radford WJ, Parnell EJ. Interobserver variation u- sing the AO/ASIF classification of long bone fractures[J]. Injury, 1993,24 (3) : 163-165.
  • 4汤荣光,刘印文,郑昱新,周国林,王鹤歧.低强度超声波促进桡骨远端骨折愈合[J].临床骨科杂志,2003,6(1):18-21. 被引量:10
  • 5Legome E, Pancu D. Future applications for emergency ultra- sound[ J]. Emerg Med Clin North Am, 2004,22(3) :817-827.
  • 6Rubin C, Bolander M, Ryaby JP, et al. The use of low-intensity ultrasound to accelerate the healing of fractures[ J ]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2001,83-A(2) :259-270.
  • 7Kasturi G, Adler RA. Mechanical means to improve bone strength: ultrasound and vibration[J]. Curr Rheumatol Rep, 2011,13(3 ) : 251-256. doi: 10. 1007/s11926-011-0177-7.
  • 8Dyson M, Brookes M. Stimulation of bone repair by ultrasound[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 1983, Suppl 2:61-66.
  • 9Kinami Y, Noda T, Ozaki T. Efficacy of low-intensity pulsed ultra- sound treatment for surgically managed fresh diaphyseal fractures of- thelower extremity: multi-center retrospective cohort study[J]. J Or- thop Sci, 2013,18(3):410-418. doi: 10,1007/s(D776-013-0358-5.

二级参考文献9

共引文献31

同被引文献26

引证文献4

二级引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部