新型解剖锁定板和重建板治疗髋臼骨折的临床对比研究

发布时间：2019-03-28 10:00

【摘要】：研究背景及目的:通过对127例手术治疗髋臼骨折的回顾性研究,比较新型解剖锁定板和重建板在髋臼骨折中的有效性。方法:回顾性研究2009年6月至2014年7月,本研究纳入髋臼骨折患者127例。我们将患者随机分为两组:重建板组85例和新型解剖锁定板组42例。患者的数据包括基本信息,创伤机制,关联损伤,Letoumel骨折分类,手术方法,从损伤到手术的时间,手术时间,手术到出院的时间,术中失血和术后三日引流量。根据Matta标准评估和放射学评分。临床评估使用Harris髋关节功能评分,疼痛评分结果。结果:我们完全收集了 127例符合纳入标准的髋臼骨折患者。使用重建板治疗的85例患者组成。使用新型解剖锁定板治疗的42例患者组成。患者性别,年龄,受伤部分,Letournel分型,手术入路,术后住院日(天),随访时间(月),是否有髋关节脱位及坐骨神经损伤,术后VAS疼痛评分方面两组之间无统计学差异。手术时间,术中失血量和术后三日引流量等参数比较,新型解剖锁定板明显优于普通重建板。术后Harris髋关节功能评分:新型解剖锁定板组的平均值为88.07±6.4分,普通重建板组评分为85.07±8.4分(P = 0.032)。术后Matta评分:新型解剖锁定板组为2.1±1.5mm,普通重建板组为2.4±1.6mm(P = 0.014)。术后并发症发生率:新型解剖锁定板组为19.0%,重建板组为23.5%,两组有显著性差异(X2 =44.51,p 0.0001)。术后髋关节功能Harris评分,术后Matt评分,术后并发症发生率方面新型解剖锁定板优于重建板组,有统计学意义。结论:治疗髋臼骨折新型解剖锁定板是比重建板更好的选择。
[Abstract]:The background and purpose of the study were to compare the effectiveness of the new anatomical locking plate and the reconstruction plate in the acetabular fracture by a retrospective study of 127 cases of surgical treatment of the acetabular fracture. Methods: From June 2009 to July 2014,127 cases of acetabular fracture were included in this study. We randomly divided the patients into two groups: the reconstruction plate group (n = 85) and the new anatomical locking plate group (42 cases). The patient's data included basic information, trauma mechanism, associated injury, Lerumbel fracture classification, surgical method, time from injury to operation, operation time, time of operation to discharge, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative three-day drainage. Based on the Matta standard assessment and the radiologic score. The Harris hip function score and the pain score were used for clinical evaluation. Results: We fully collected 127 cases of acetabular fractures that met the criteria for inclusion. The composition of 85 patients treated with a reconstruction plate was used. 42 patients treated with a new anatomic locking plate. There was no statistical difference between the two groups of the patient's sex, age, the injured part, the Contourniel type, the operative approach, the postoperative hospital day (day), the follow-up time (months), the hip dislocation and the sciatic nerve injury, and the VAS pain score after operation. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative three-day drainage were compared, and the new anatomic locking plate was better than that of the conventional reconstruction plate. Post-operation Harris hip function score: The mean value of the new anatomical locking plate group was 88.07-6.4 points, and the score of the common reconstruction plate group was 85.07-8.4 (P = 0.032). The postoperative Matta score: the new anatomic locking plate group was 2.1-1.5 mm and the common reconstruction plate group was 2.4-1.6 mm (P = 0.014). The incidence of postoperative complications was 19.0% in the new anatomic locking plate group and 23.5% in the reconstruction plate group, and there was a significant difference between the two groups (X2 = 44.51, p 0.0001). Post-operative hip function Harris score, postoperative Matt score, and postoperative complication rate were superior to the reconstruction plate group, which is of statistical significance. Conclusion: The new anatomic locking plate for the treatment of acetabular fracture is a better choice than the reconstruction plate.
【学位授予单位】：中国人民解放军医学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：R687.3

【相似文献】