摘要
目的探讨采用带尾孔针缆及线缆固定两种不同方法治疗髌骨骨折的临床疗效。方法选取40例髌骨骨折．其中18例行带尾孔针缆系统治疗（针缆组），22例行线缆环扎固定治疗（线缆组）。参照Bostman标准评价两组的临床疗效。结果针缆组手术时间为40．15～56．52min，与线缆组的42．22～53．21min比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；针缆组骨折愈合时间（10±2）周短于线缆组（14±2）周，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；针缆组获随访（12．00±4．34）个月，Bostman评分优良率100．0％；线缆组随访（16．46±2．82）个月，Bostman评分优良率90．9％，两组优良率比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05），两组术后无一例发生感染。结论采用带尾孔针缆系统治疗髌骨骨折具有固定牢固、并发症少、术后骨折愈合时问短、患膝功能恢复好等优点，值得推广应用。
Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of two different methods, needle with tail hole cable and cable for treatment of patella fracture. Methods All of 40 eases of patella fracture were selected, including 18 routine with tail hole needle cable system treatment （needle cable group）, and regular cable ring finn fixation for （cable group）. With reference to Bostman standard, the elinical curative effect was evaluated. Results The operation time of needle cable group was （40.15- 56.52）min, and eable group was （42.22-53.21）min, there＇s no significant difference （P 〉0.05）; the fracture healing time of needle cable group was （10±2）weeks, shorter than cable group＇s （14±2）weeks, there＇s signifieant differenee （P 〈0.05）; needle cable group was followed up for （12.00±4.34）months, acceptance rate was 100.0%; cable group was followed up for （16.46± 2.82）months,acceptance rate was 90.9%, there＇s significant difference （P 〈0.05）. There＇s no postoperative infection ease. Conclusion The tail hole needle cable system treatment for patella fracture has fewer complications, and postoperative fracture healing time is short, with the advantages of knee functional recovery, popularization.
出处
《中国骨与关节损伤杂志》
2013年第7期641-643,共3页
Chinese Journal of Bone and Joint Injury
关键词
髌骨
骨折
线缆
内固定
Patellar
Fracture
Cable
Internal frxation
