论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较斯氏针辅助与徒手复位顺行髓内钉固定远端股骨干骨折的疗效。方法:回顾性分析2014年1月至2018年8月收治并获得完整随访的54例远端股骨干骨折患者资料。根据骨折复位方式分为徒手复位组和斯氏针辅助复位组（简称斯氏针复位组）。徒手复位组26例，男16例，女10例；年龄（37.5±9.2）岁（范围，21~59岁）；骨折AO/OTA分型：32-A型16例，32-B型7例，32-C型3例；受伤至手术时间（7.9±6.2）d。斯氏针复位组28例，男19例，女9例；年龄（36.4±9.8）岁（范围，18~55岁）；骨折AO/OTA分型：32-A型19例，32-B型7例，32-C型2例；受伤至手术时间（9.2±6.4）d。比较两组复位时间、透视次数、术中出血量、骨折愈合时间、美国特种外科医院（hospital for special surgery, HSS）膝关节功能评分。结果:术中出血量，斯氏针复位组（94.81±17.71）ml，徒手复位组（142.78±29.76）ml；骨折复位时间，斯氏针复位组（5.02±1.69）min，徒手复位组（14.19±2.50）min；复位时透视次数，斯氏针复位组（5.01±1.51）次，徒手复位组（12.56±2.01）次；以上指标比较差异均有统计学意义（n t=12.19，4.02，5.47；均n P0.05）；两组术前及术后各时间点比较，差异有统计学意义（n F=716.42，815.52，均n P<0.001）。术后斯氏针复位组未发生进针点感染、血管神经损伤、内固定失败等并发症。n 结论:采用斯氏针辅助与徒手复位顺行髓内钉固定远端股骨干骨折术后均可获得优良疗效，但斯氏针辅助复位较徒手复位的复位时间短、透视次数少，是更为安全的复位方法。“,”Objective:To compare of the efficacy of Steinman pin-assisted and manual reduction for the treatment of distal femoral fracture with anterograde intramedullary nail.Methods:From January 2014 to August 2018, data of 54 patients with distal femoral fracture were retrospectively analyzed. According to the fracture reduction methods, patients were divided into two groups: bare-handed reduction group and Steinman pin-assisted reduction group (referred to Steinman pin group). There were 16 males and 10 females in bare-handed reduction group, with age of 37.5±9.2 years (range, 21-59 years). According to AO/OTA classification, 16 cases were type 32-A, 7 type 32-B, 3 type 32-C. There were 19 males and 9 females in Steinman pin reduction group, with age of 36.4±9.8 years (range, 18-55 years). According to AO/OTA classification, 19 cases were type 32-A, 7 type 32-B, 2 type 32-C. The reduction time, fluoroscopy times, intraoperative blood loss, fracture healing time, and knee joint function score of American hospital for special surgery (HSS) were compared between the two groups.Results:The amount of blood loss during operation was 142.78±29.76 ml in the bare-handed group, and 94.81±17.71 ml in the Steinman pin group. The reduction time of fracture was 14.19±2.50 min in the bare-handed group and 5.02±1.69 min in the Steinman pin group. The times of fluoroscopy during reduction was 12.56 ±2.01 in the bare-handed group and 5.01±1.51 in the Steinman pin group. There were significant differences in the above indexes (n t=12.19, 4.02, 5.47; all n P 0.05). There were significant differences between the two groups at each time point before and after operation ( n F=716.42, 815.52, n P < 0.001). There were no complications such as injection point infection, vascular and nerve injury, failure of internal fixation and so on.n Conclusion:Both groups had good functional recovery after operation. However, compared with bare-handed reduction, Steinman pin groupreduction has less intraoperative blood loss, shorter reduction time and less fluoroscopy times, which is a safer reduction method.