髓内钉被认为是内固定治疗闭合性胫骨干骨折的金标准,与MIPPO钢板相比,髓内钉是否真的存在明显优势?
为研究髓内钉与MIPPO在治疗闭合性胫骨干骨折中的疗效与并发症差异,国外学者进行了对比研究,相关结果发表在2021.04期Injury期刊上。
Introduction
[Introduction: Intramedullary nailing (IMN) is currently considered the gold standard in the surgical treatment of tibial shaft fractures in adult patients. In this case-control comparative study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) and IMN in treating tibial shaft fractures.]
Materials and methods
[Materials and methods: The clinical and radiological outcomes, such as a modified trauma scale, operation time, fracture healing, rate of re-operation, and complications such as malunion, nonunion, shortening, and infection were assessed between IMN and MIPO for the treatment of tibial shaft fractures.]
Results
对2010年6月至2016年5月因闭合性胫骨干关节外骨折(AO/OTA 42)接受IMN(组一)或MIPO(组二)治疗的73例骨骼成熟患者进行回顾性分析。平均年龄51.16 (18~79)岁,平均随访时间22 (12~50)个月。除IMN组(35例)和MIPO组(36例)各1例外,其余病例均骨性愈合(p > 0.05)。两组均在12(8-16)周观察到平均骨痂形成(p > 0.05)。两组在手术时间、住院时间、骨愈合及并发症发生率方面无显著性差异(p > 0.05)。两种方法术后功能评价无差异(p > 0.05)。
Conclusions
[Conclusions: No discrepancy was found in radiological and clinical outcomes between IMN and MIPO for tibial shaft fractures. It can be concluded that both IMN and MIPO are equally effective treatment modalities for tibial shaft fractures.]
联系客服