骨搬运联合锁定钢板与传统骨搬运术治疗胫骨骨缺损的疗效比较

Effectiveness of bone transport with a locking plate versus conventional bone transport for tibial defects

目的 探讨骨搬运联合锁定钢板(bone transport with a locking plate,BTLP)与Ilizarov支架或Orthofix支架行传统骨搬运术治疗胫骨骨缺损的疗效差异。方法 回顾分析2016年1月—2020年9月符合选择标准的60例胫骨开放性骨折患者临床资料,患者分别采用BTLP(BTLP组,n=20)、Ilizarov支架(Ilizarov组,n=23)、Orthofix支架(Orthofix组,n=17)进行骨搬运治疗。3组患者性别、年龄、致伤原因、受伤至入院时间、胫骨骨折分型、骨缺损长度以及合并症等一般资料比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。比较3组截骨延长术手术时间、骨搬运支架带架时间、外固定指数及术后并发症发生情况;骨重建完成(拆除支架)后,采用Ilizarov方法应用研究学会(ASAMI)评价标准评定骨愈合及功能恢复情况。结果 3组患者均获随访,随访时间13~45个月,平均20.4个月。BTLP组截骨延长术手术时间短于Ilizarov组,骨搬运支架带架时间及外固定指数均低于Ilizarov组和Orthofix组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。Ilizarov组骨折愈合22例、延迟愈合1例,Orthofix组分别为16、1例,BTLP组分别为18、2例,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.824)。骨重建完成后根据ASAMI评价标准,BTLP组骨愈合评价优于Orthofix组,功能评价优于Ilizarov组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后BLTP组4例(20%)、Ilizarov组18例(78%)、Orthofix组12例(70%)发生并发症,BTLP组并发症发生率低于Ilizarov组和Orthofix组(P<0.05)。结论 BTLP治疗胫骨骨缺损安全、有效,并且在截骨延长术手术时间、外固定指数、患肢功能恢复方面较传统骨搬运术有明显优势。

Objective To investigate the effectiveness difference between bone transport with a locking plate(BTLP) and conventional bone transport with Ilizarov/Orthofix fixators in treatment of tibial defect. Methods The clinical data of 60 patients with tibial fractures who met the selection criteria between January 2016 and September 2020were retrospectively analyzed, and patients were treated with BTLP(BTLP group, n=20), Ilizarov fixator(Ilizarov group,n=23), or Orthofix fixator(Orthofix group, n=17) for bone transport. There was no significant difference in gender, age,cause of injury, time from injury to admission, length of bone defect, tibial fracture typing, and comorbidities between groups(P>0.05). The osteotomy time, the retention time of external fixator, the external fixation index, and the occurrence of postoperative complications were recorded and compared between groups. The bone healing and functional recovery were evaluated by the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov(ASAMI) criteria.Results All patients of 3 groups were followed up 13-45 months, with a mean of 20.4 months. The osteotomy time was significantly shorter in the BTLP group than in the Ilizarov group, and the retention time of external fixator and the external fixation index were significantly lower in the BTLP group than in the Ilizarov and Orthofix groups(P<0.05).Twenty-two fractures healed in the Ilizarov group and 1 case of delayed healing;16 fractures healed in the Orthofix group and 1 case of delayed healing;18 fractures healed in the BTLP group and 2 cases of delayed healing. There was no significant difference between groups in fracture healing distribution(P=0.824). After completing bone reconstruction treatment according to ASAMI criteria, the BTLP group had better bone healing than the Orthofix group and better function than the Ilizarov groups, showing significant differences(P<0.05). Postoperative complications occurred in4 cases(20%) in the BLTP group, 18 cases(78%) in the Ilizarov group, and 12 cases(70%) in the Orthofix group. The incidence of complication in the BTLP group was significantly lower than that in other groups(P<0.05). Conclusion BTLP is safe and effective in the treatment of tibial defects. BTLP has apparent advantages over the conventional bone transport technique in osteotomy time, external fixation index, and lower limb functional recovery.