两种手术入路治疗跟骨关节内骨折的临床观察

摘要

目的比较外侧横行小切口与传统“L”形切口切开复位接骨板内固定术治疗跟骨关节内骨折的临床疗效。方法2014年1月—2016年5月我院收治跟骨关节内骨折54例，分为外侧横行小切口组38例，传统“L”形切口组16例。比较2组患者手术时间、手术出血量、切口长度、术后第6天 VAS 疼痛评分、切口愈合情况、术后影像学结果及 Maryland 足部评分。结果两组患者均获得随访，平均随访时间为12个月。2组患者手术时间、末次影像学比较差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。手术出血量、术后第6天 VAS 疼痛评分、切口愈合情情况、Maryland 足部评分差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论外侧横行小切口与传统“L”形切口切开复位接骨板内固定术治疗跟骨关节内骨折临床总体疗效相当，但外侧横行小切口组具有切口小，出血量少，手术创伤小，切口并发症较少等优点。%Objective To compare the lateral run small incision with traditional"L"shape incision and bone plate internal fixation (orif) to the clinical efficacy of intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Methods Between January 2014 and May 2014, including the lateral run small incision group of 38 cases, traditional "L"shape incision in 16 cases. Compare two groups of patients with contrast clinical content is: operation time, blood loss, length of incision;Postoperative day 1 VAS pain score;Incision healing; Postoperative radiographic results analysis; Maryland foot score. Results Two groups of patients were follow-up, the average follow-up time was 12 months. Two groups of patients at the end of the operation time, time imaging to compare differences had no statistical significance (P>0.05).Surgery, blood loss, postoperative day 1 VAS pain score, incision healing, Maryland foot scores were statistically significant (P<0.05).Conclusion The lateral run small incision with traditional"L"shape incision and bone plate internal fixation (orif)overall clinical curative effect of intra-articular calcaneal fractures, but the lateral run small incision group with a small incision, less blood loss, less surgical trauma, small incision complications, etc.