解剖型胫骨髓内钉与锁定加压钢板治疗胫骨骨折不愈合的疗效比较

摘要

目的 分析比较解剖型胫骨髓内钉、锁定加压钢板治疗胫骨骨折不愈合的临床疗效.方法 将51例胫骨骨折不愈合患者随机分为两组,分别采用解剖型胫骨髓内钉、锁定加压钢板固定,并比较两种内固定的手术操作时间、手术出血量、住院时间和术后平均骨折愈合时间、术后并发症.结果 解剖型胫骨髓内钉组患者的术后平均骨折愈合时间和住院时间均较锁定加压钢板组明显缩短(均P＜0.01),综合评分疗效优于锁定加压钢板组(P＜0.05);而两组患者的平均出血量、平均手术时间和术后并发症发生情况的差异均无统计学意义(均P ＞0.05).结论 解剖型胫骨髓内钉法在缩短胫骨骨折不愈合患者的平均骨折愈合时间、住院时间和提高综合疗效方面优于锁定加压钢板法.%Objective To analyze and compare the effects of the ETN and locking compression plate (LCP) in the treatment of tibial fracture nonunion and to provide evidence for the choice of internal fixation.Methods 51 cases of nonunion of tibial fractures were randomly divided into two comparable groups, respectively treated surgically with ETN and LCP.Factors including surgery time, intraoperative bleeding, hospitalization time, mean time of fracture union, and complications after operation were studied statistically for analysis.Results Group ETN spent significantly less mean time of hospitalization and fracture union than group LCP (P＜0.01).Comprehensive assessment of efficacy :group ETN was significantly better than group LCP (P＜0.05); but there was no statistically difference in the average intraoperative blood loss, mean surgery time and complications between two groups (P＞0.05).Conclusion ETN has more advantages than LCP in the treatment oftibial fracture nonunion.