锁定钢板与普通解剖钢板加植骨治疗Sanders Ⅱ、Ⅲ型跟骨骨折效果对照

摘要

目的 对比观察锁定钢板与普通解剖钢板加植骨治疗Sanders Ⅱ、Ⅲ型跟骨骨折的临床疗效.方法 选择2013年3月至2015年3月收治的77例Sanders Ⅱ、Ⅲ型跟骨骨折患者作为研究对象,根据随机数字表法分为观察组(n=39)和对照组(n=38).对照组行普通解剖钢板加植骨治疗,观察组行锁定钢板内固定治疗.比较两组患者的手术情况,随访1年后,比较两组患者Bohler角、Gissane角及跟骨宽度、长度、跟距高度变化情况.结果 观察组手术时间、住院时间分别为(62.6±7.5)min、(13.3±1.6)d,均低于对照组(80.7±7.9 min、15.9±1.3 d)(P0.05);两组患者临床疗效比较差异无统计学意义(Z=0.420,P>0.05).结论 锁定钢板内固定与普通解剖钢板加植骨均是治疗Sanders Ⅱ、Ⅲ型跟骨骨折的有效术式,但锁定钢板内固定术明显缩短了患者手术时间及住院时间,且避免了植骨引起的相关并发症,值得临床重视.%Objective To investigate the effect of normal anatomic plate with bone graft and locking plate in treatment of calcaneal fractures of Sanders types Ⅱ, Ⅲ.Methods 77 cases of calcaneal fractures of Sanders types Ⅱ,Ⅲ patients from March 2013 to March 2015 were selected as the research object, according to the random number table method they were divided into observation group (n=39) and control group (n=38).The control group was treated with normal anatomic plate with bone graft, and the observation group was treated with locking plate internal fixation.The operation of the two groups were compared, the patients were followed up for 1 years, the Bohler angle, Gissane angle and calcaneal width, length, and height of the groups were compared between the two groups.Results The operation time, hospitalization time in the observation group were (62.6±7.5) min, (13.3±1.6) d, were lower than the control group (80.7±7.9 min, 15.9±1.3 d) (P0.05).There was no significant difference in clinical efficacy between the two groups (Z=0.420, P>0.05).Conclusion Normal anatomic plate with bone graft and locking plate internal fixation are effective methods for treatment of calcaneal fractures of Sanders types Ⅱ,Ⅲ,but the locking plate fixation can shorten the operation time and length of stay, and avoid the complications caused by bone graft, it is worthy of clinical application.