LISS法与传统切开固定法治疗复杂胫骨平台骨折的临床效果比较

Comparison of the clinical effects of LISS and traditional open reduction and fixation for complex tibial plateau fractures

目的比较微创内固定系统(LISS)与传统切开固定法治疗复杂胫骨平台骨折临床应用疗效。方法选取2015年1月~2016年6月期间在本院进行治疗的临床患者,其均为复杂胫骨平台骨折患者。其中,共收治44例患者,将其随机平均分为两组,每组22例,分别为对照组与实验组。对照组采用传统切开固定法治疗,实验组采用LISS法治疗,对比两组手术情况、近远期预后情况。结果在手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间以及骨折愈合时间,而实验组明显要优于对照组(P<0.05);接受治疗6个月后,实验组的疼痛感明显低于对照组(P<0.05),实验组的HSS膝关节功能评分及屈伸活动度明显好于对照组(P<0.05)。结论在复杂胫骨平台骨折治疗方面,与传统切开固定法相比,采用LISS法治疗效果较好,创伤小,安全性高,这一治疗方法能够缩短骨折愈合时间,远期膝关节功能恢复与活动度情况更为理想,有利于患者预后恢复,值得推广。

Objective To compare the clinical effects of LISS and traditional open reduction and fixation for complex tibial plateau fractures. Methods Clinical patients cured in our hospital from January 2015 to June 2016 were selected, and all of them were complicated tibial plateau fracture. Among them, there were a total of 44 patients, and they were randomly divided into two groups, each group of 22, respectively, the control group and the experimental group. Patients in control group were treated with traditional incision and fixation therapy, and patients in experimental group were treated with LISS. The operation situation, prognosis in the near future of the two groups were compared. Results The time of operation, the amount of bleeding, the time of hospitalization and the healing time of fracture in the experimental group were significantly higher than in the control group（P 〈 0.05）. After 6 months of treatment, the pain in the experimental group was significantly lower than that in the control group（P 〈 0.05）, the scores of knee joint function and flexion and extension of HSS in the experimental group were significantly better than those in the control group（P 〈 0.05）. Conclusion In the treatment of complex tibial plateau fractures, compared with traditional open reduction fixation, the treatment with LISS is better, it has less trauma and higher safety. This treatment can shorten the healing time of the fracture. The functional recovery and mobility of the knee joint in the long term are more ideal. It is conducive to prognosis of patients. It is worth promoting.