摘要
目的 比较跗骨窦切口与传统L形切口内固定治疗跟骨骨折的疗效.方法 将30例跟骨骨折患者按照切口不同分为观察组(采用跗骨窦切口内固定治疗)和对照组(采用传统L形切口内固定治疗),每组15例.记录两组术中出血量、手术时间、住院时间、骨折愈合情况、跟骨宽度和高度、Böhler角、Gissane角.结果 患者均获得随访,时间12～24个月.术中出血量、手术时间、住院时间观察组均少(短)于对照组(P＜0.05).骨痂形成时间、骨折愈合时间两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).末次随访时,两组跟骨宽度和高度、Böhler角、Gissane角均较术前改善(P＜0.05),但两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).并发症发生率观察组低于对照组(P＜0.05).结论 传统L形切口与跗骨窦切口内固定均能有效治疗跟骨骨折,跗骨窦切口内固定具有创伤小、出血少、手术及住院时间短、并发症少的优势.
Abstract
Objective To compare the efficacy of tarsal sinus incision and traditional L-shaped incision internal fixa-tion in the treatment of calcaneal fracture.Methods Thirty patients with calcaneal fractures were divided into obser-vation group(treated with internal fixation via tarsal sinus incision)and control group(treated with traditional L-shaped incision internal fixation)according to different incisions,with 15 cases in each group.The volume of intraop-erative bleeding,operation time,hospital stay,fracture healing,calcaneal width and height,Böhler angle,and Gissane angle were recorded in both groups.Results All patients were followed up for 12～24 months.The volume of intraop-erative blood loss,operation time,and hospital stay were less(shorter)in the observation group than the control group(P＜0.05).There were no statistical differences in callus formation time and fracture healing time between the two groups(P＞0.05).At the last follow-up,the calcaneal width,height,Böhler angle and Gissane angle of the two groups were improved,compared with the preoperative period(P＜0.05),but there was no statistical difference between the two groups(P＞0.05).The observation group had a lower complication incidence rate than the control group(P＜0.05).Conclusions The internal fixation via traditional L-shaped incision and tarsal sinus incision can effectively treat calcaneal fractures,and internal fixation via tarsal sinus incision has the advantages of less trauma,less bleeding,shorter surgery time and hospital stay,and fewer complications.
维普
万方数据