论文部分内容阅读
【目的】探讨传统钛网修补颅骨与三维塑形钛网修补颅骨的临床疗效情况。【方法】选取本院2010年1月至2012年12月收治的56例颅骨损伤患者为研究对象，应用随机数字表法将颅骨损伤患者分为对照组和观察组，每组28例。观察组采用三维塑形钛网修补颅骨，对照组采用传统钛网修补，比较两组患者平均手术时间、平均住院时间、平均住院费用、创面修复满意度和术后并发症发生率。【结果】观察组患者手术平均时间为（100．3±13．5）min、住院时间平均为（14．5±1．5） d、平均住院费用为（2．1±0．6）万元，明显小于对照组（120．7±12．3）min、（20．5±2．4）d以及（2．8±0．7）万元，两组相比差异具有统计学意义（P ＜0．05）；且患者术后并发症发生率比较，观察组为明显少于对照组（7．1％ vs25．0％），差异具有统计学意义（P ＜0．05）。【结论】与传统钛网修补颅骨术相比，三维塑形钛网修补颅骨术效果显著，手术及住院时间短，费用较少，且患者术后并发症较少。“,”[Objective] To explore the clinical efficacy of traditional titanium mesh vs three-dimensional shaping titanium mesh for repairing the skull .[Methods] A total of 56 patients with cranial injury treated in our hospital from Jan .2010 to Dec .2012 were chosen as the research objects .All patients were randomly di-vided into control group and observation group with 28 patients in each group .The observation group under-went three-dimensional shaping titanium mesh for repairing the skull ,while the control group underwent tradi-tional titanium mesh for repairing the skull .The average operation time ,the average hospital stay ,the average hospital cost , wound repair satisfaction and the incidence of postoperative complications were compared .[Results]The average operation time of the observation group was (100 .3 ± 13 .5)min ,and the average hospi-tal stay was (14 .5 ± 1 .5)d ,and the average hospital cost was (2 .1 ± 0 .6) ten thousand yuan ,which were less than those in control group[(120 .7 ± 12 .3)min ,(20 .5 ± 2 .4)d and (2 .8 ± 0 .7) ten thousand yuan ,respec-tively] ,and there were significant difference between two groups ( P <0 .05) .The incidence of postoperative complications in the observation group was lower than that in the control group (7 .1% vs 25 .0% ) ,and there was significant difference( P <0 .05) .[Conclusion] Compared with traditional titanium mesh for repairing the skull ,three-dimensional shaping titanium mesh for repairing the skull has significant efficacy ,short operation and hospitalization time ,less cost and postoperative complication .