摘要
Abstract
Objective To compare the advantages and disadvantages of interlocking intramedullary nail and minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis in the treatment of tibia fracture.Methods 59 cases of tibia fracture,treated from 2013.01 to 2015.01,were randomly divided into two groups,one group were treated with interlocking intramedullary nail,and the other were treated with minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis.The operation time,blood loss cases,the number of perspective,postoperative complications,and fracture healing time were observered to comparer the efficacy of interlocking intramedullary nail and minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis in the treatment of tibia fracture. Results Except 1 person in each group was lost follow-up, The other patients were followed up for 19~27 weeks (average 22.4 weeks), and their fracture have healed.we found obvious difference between two groups according to the date of the operation time,blood loss cases,the number of perspective,and fracture healing time ( <0.05). In the aspects of postoperative complications,the two groups had no significant difference ( >0.05). Conclusion The group treated with interlocking intramedullary nail has longer operation time,more blood loss cases,more number of perspective, but shorter fracture healing time. And in the aspects of postoperative complications,the two groups had no significant difference.关键词
胫骨髓内钉/经皮微创钢板/胫骨干多段骨折Key words
Interlocking intramedullary nail/Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis/Tibial fractures
