摘要
目的比较采用有限内固定和钢板内固定治疗跟骨关节内骨折的疗效。方法回顾性分析自2001年8月～2004年4月的98例105足跟骨关节内骨折手术治疗的患者,其中51例55足使用有限内固定治疗,另47例50足使用标准AO跟骨钢板固定治疗,比较两组疗效。结果全部患者获12～34个月随访,根据美国足踝骨科协会(AOFAS)评分:有限内固定组平均89.8分,优良率83.6%;钢板固定组平均86.8分,优良率80.0%,两组结果相似,差异无显著性意义(P>0.05)。软组织问题:有限内固定组3足(5.5%)发生表浅皮肤坏死;钢板组9足(18.0%)中7足发生表浅的皮缘坏死,1足皮肤坏死并钢板外露,1足伤口裂开;两组差异有显著性意义(P<0.05)。结论跟骨关节内骨折切开复位钢板内固定,疗效满意;有限内固定可以获得与钢板固定相似的结果。而有限内固定可能更加经济,更易开展,可能较前者软组织风险更低。
Objective To compare two methods of treating intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Methods From August 2001 to April 2004 in our department, 51 cases （55 loots） of intra-articular calcaneal fractures were treated with ORIF （open reduction internal fixation） and limited internal fixation, and 47 cases （50 loots） with ORIF and calcaneal plates. A comparison was made between the two groups. Results After a follow-up of 12 to 34 months, all the cases were assessed according to AOFAS （American Orthopedic Foot ＆ Ankle Society） scale system. The mean score was 86. 8 points and the rate of excellent-good results was 80. 0% in the plate group, and those were 89. 8 points and 83.6% in the limited internal fixation group. There was no statistical difference between the two groups （ P 〉 0. 05） . Nine loots （18.0%） reported soft tissue problems in the plate group, and three loots （5.5%） in the limited internal fixation group. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant （ P 〈 0. 05）. Conclusions In the treatment of the intra-articular calcaneal fractures, ORIF with limited internal fixation can achieve as good results as ORIF with calcaneal plate, but is probably more economical, easier and less liable to a lower soft tissue problem than the latter.
出处
《中华创伤骨科杂志》
CAS
CSCD
2006年第5期407-410,共4页
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
关键词
跟骨骨折
关节内骨折
有限内固定
跟骨钢板
Calcaneal fracture
Intra-articular fracture
Limited internal fixation
Cacaneal plate
