摘要
目的比较微创经皮钢板内固定（MIPPO）技术与切开复位钢板内固定（ORIF）治疗胫骨远端骨折的临床效果。方法选取本院2012年3月～2014年3月接收治疗的胫骨远端骨折患者120例，在治疗方法上均选取钢板内固定的方式。根据患者就诊日期奇偶数不同将其平均分为ORIF组和MIPPO组，分别给予传统的ORIF技术和MIPPO方法进行治疗。比较两组的疗效。结果MIPPO组手术时间、骨折恢复时间短于ORIF组，术中出血量少于ORIF组，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。ORIF组手术后恢复期的效果不佳，对患者的健康有一定的影响，MIPPO组并发症发生率明显低于ORIF组，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论MIPPO技术在治疗效果、操作技术、安全实用性等方面都比传统的ORIF方法具有优势，具有临床研究价值和推广应用意义。
Objective To compare the clinical effect of minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis （MIPPO） and open reduction and internal fixation （ORIF） in the treatment of distal tibial fracture. Methods 120 cases of patients with distal tibial fracture treated in our hospital from March 2012 to March 2014 were selected as the study objects,all patients were treated by plates internal fixation,then were divided idto ORIF group and MIPPO group,which were treated by ORIF and MIPPO respectively,the clinical efficacy was compared between two groups. Results Operation time, fracture recovery time in MIPPO group was shorter than that in the ORIF group,blood loss was less than that in the ORIF group,the difference was significant （P〈0.05）.The incidence of complication in ORIF group was lower than that in the ORIF group,the difference was significant （P〈0.05）. Conclusion The clinical efficacy,operation technique,safety and practicability of MIPPO are better than those of ORIF,which worhty of being studyed and promoted in clinic.
出处
《中国当代医药》
2014年第16期63-64,67,共3页
China Modern Medicine
关键词
胫骨远端骨折
微创经皮钢板内固定
切开复位钢板内固定
Distal tibial fracture
Minimally invasive external fixation
Open reduction with internal fixation
