期刊文献+

交锁钉与外固定架治疗胫骨干多段骨折的疗效比较 被引量:1

Analysis on Effect of Interlocking Intramedullary Nailing and Unilateral Exteral Fixation in Treating Tibial Smashing Fractures
暂未订购
导出
摘要 目的 评价交锁髓内钉和单臂外固定架对胫骨干多段骨折的治疗效果。方法 回顾分析 1998年以来治疗胫骨干多段骨折应用交锁钉3 8例 ,应用外固定架 3 0例 ,比较术后 2年的恢复情况。结果 交锁钉治疗组骨折原位愈合率为 92 %( 3 5 /3 8) ,成角畸形愈合率 2 6%( 1/3 8) ,骨折延迟愈合 5 3 %( 2 /3 8) ,骨不连 0例 ,骨髓炎 2 6%( 1/3 8) ,皮瓣坏死 2 6%( 1/3 8) ,大隐静脉损伤 5 3 %( 2 /3 8) ,筋膜间隙综合征 0例。平均骨折愈合时间 6.5个月。而外固定架组分别为 5 0 %( 15 /3 0 )、16.7%( 5 /3 0 )、2 6.7%( 8/3 0 )、6 7%( 2 /3 0 )、10 %( 3 /3 0 )、10 %( 3 /3 0 )、10 %( 3 /3 0 )、6 7%( 2 /3 0 ) ,针眼感染 16 7%( 5 /3 0 ) ,平均愈合时间 8.5个月。结论 交锁髓内钉治疗胫骨干多段骨折生物力学好、操作方便、固定牢固、对骨折局部血供损伤小 ,下床负重早 ,其治疗效果好 ,并发症少。 Objective To evaluate the efficacy of interlocking intramedullary nailing and unilateral exteral fixation in the treatment of tibial smashing fractures.Methods Aretrospective analysis was done on the recovery of 38 cases with tibial smashing fractures treated with the interlocking intramedullary nailing(Group A) and 30 treated with unilateral exteral fixation(Group B) from 1998.Results The 12~24 months follow up showed that healing rate and the infection rate were 94.7%(36/38) and 5.2%(2/38) respectively in the Group A with a mean healing time 6.5 months and 76.7%(23/30) and 36.7%(11/30) respectively in the Group B with a mean healing time for 8.5 months.Conclusion The interlocking intramedullary nailing has obvious advantage of excelent biodynamics,reliable fixation,simple operation,less trauma on regional blood supply and is more effective in the treatment of tibial smashing fractures than the unilateral exteral fixation.
机构地区 解放军第
出处 《临床军医杂志》 CAS 2004年第2期75-77,共3页 Clinical Journal of Medical Officers
关键词 交锁钉 外固定架 外科治疗 胫骨干多段骨折 术后并发症 tibial smashing fractures fracture fixtion interlocking intramedullary nailing unilateral exteral fixation
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

二级参考文献17

  • 1[1]Couit- Brown CM, Will E, Christie J, et al. Reamed or unreamed nailing for closed tibial fractures. A prospective study in Tscherne CI fractures. J Bone Joint Sury (Br), 1996, 78:580
  • 2[2]Keating JF. O'Brien PI, Blachut PA, et al. Reamed interlocking intramedullary nailing of open fractures of the tibia. Clin Orthop,1997, 338:182
  • 3[3]Fairbank AC. Thomas D, Cunningham B, et al. Stability of reumed and unreamed intramedullary tibial mails: a biomechanical study Injury, 1995, 26:483
  • 4[4]Templeman D, Thomas M, Varecka T, et al. Exchange reamed intramedullary nailing for delayed union and nonunion of the tibia.Clin Orthop, 1995, 315:169
  • 5[5]Anglen JO, Blue JM. A comparison of reamed and unreamed nailing of the tibia. J Trauma, 1995, 39:351
  • 6Brumback RJ,Ellison TS,Molligan H et a1.Pudendal nerve palsy complicating intramedullary nailing of the femur.J Bone Joint Surg,1992,74,1450.
  • 7Schemitsch EH, Kowalski MF, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Effects of reamed versus unreamed locking nailing on eaUus blood flow and early strength of union in a fractured sheep tibia model. Orthop Trans,1994, 18:145.
  • 8Wiss DA, Stetwon WB. Unstable fractures of the tibia treated with a reamed intramedullary interlocking nail. Clin Orthop, 1995, 315:56.
  • 9Gustilo RB, Gruninger RP, Davis T. Classification of type Ⅲ (sever) open fractures relative to treatment and results. Orthopedics,1987, 10:1781.
  • 10Schemitsch EH, Turchin DC, Kowalski MJ, et al. Quantitative assessment of bone injury and repair after reamed and unreamed locked intramedullary nailing. J Trauma, 1998, 45:250.

共引文献268

同被引文献7

引证文献1

二级引证文献8

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