闭合复位顺行磁力导航交锁髓内钉固定治疗肱骨干骨

目的 探讨闭合复位顺行磁力导航交锁髓内钉固定治疗肱骨干骨折的临床疗效。方法 采用闭合复位顺行磁力导航交锁髓内钉固定治疗16例肱骨干骨折患者。记录手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合时间及并发症发生情况;末次随访时采用Neer评分、Mayo评分评价肩肘关节功能。结果 手术时间70～125 min,术中出血量70～150 ml。术后切口均一期愈合,无切口感染、脂肪栓塞以及继发性神经、血管损伤等并发症发生。患者均获得随访,时间6～18个月。骨折均愈合,时间12～20周。无内固定物松动或断裂。末次随访时,根据Neer评分评价肩关节功能:优14例,良2例;根据Mayo评分评价肘关节功能:优14例,良2例。结论闭合复位顺行磁力导航交锁髓内钉固定治疗肱骨干骨折具有创伤小、安全、骨折愈合快及肩、肘关节功能恢复满意等优势。     

闭合复位带锁髓内钉治疗胫骨干骨折体会

目的探讨胫骨干骨折的微创治疗方法。方法我院自2006年3月至2007年12月对32例胫骨干骨折行闭合复位带锁髓内钉内固定术,术后随访10~18个月。结果32例胫骨干骨折全部骨性愈合。结论采用闭合复位带锁髓内钉内固定治疗胫骨干骨折具有微创,固定可靠,愈合率高,并发症少等优点,适合基层医院推广。     

中医正骨手法在胫腓骨骨折闭合复位微创内固定中的运用

目的 研究运用中医正骨手法闭合复位、微创内固定治疗胫腓骨骨折的优越性.方法 对151例(158处)胫腓骨闭合性骨折采用中医正骨手法闭合复位,不切开暴露骨折端的微创方法内固定治疗.结果 随访时间8～36个月,骨折愈合时间3～24个月,平均4.6个月.胫骨干骺端骨折经皮微创技术解剖钢板固定平均愈合时间4.1个月,胫骨干骨折髓内钉固定平均愈合时间4.9个月,开放性骨折平均愈合时间5.3个月,多段骨折平均愈合时间6.4个月.结论 闭合复位有利于骨折愈合,巧妙的运用中医正骨手法,使胫腓骨骨折闭合复位时损伤小,结合微创手术内固定,其治疗疗效理想.     

微创带锁髓内钉治疗胫骨骨折两种方法疗效分析

[目的]探讨闭合复位与小切口骨膜外复位、交锁髓内钉内固定治疗胫骨骨折的疗效。[方法]自2000年3月～2008年8月采用带锁髓内钉微创内固定治疗胫骨骨折80例,随机分为闭合复位组和小切口骨膜外复位组,从手术时间、术后并发症、骨折临床愈合时间、骨折临床疗效等方面进行比较分析。[结果]平均随访时间为19.5个月,两组手术时间、骨折临床愈合时间、临床疗效之间差别无统计学意义(P0.05)。小切口组术后解剖复位例数明显多于闭合复位组(P0.05)。闭合复位组有10例发生术后血肿(P0.05)。[结论]皮肤切口的有无并不应当作为衡量是否微创的标准;小切口骨膜外复位、髓内钉固定治疗胫骨骨折,骨膜的血液供应没有进一步损伤,而且骨折复位简便、有效。     

髌上入路锁定型髓内钉内固定治疗胫骨干骨折

目的探讨分析髌上入路META-NAIL锁定型髓内钉内固定治疗胫骨干骨折的疗效。方法笔者自2012-02—2014-07采用髌上入路META-NAIL锁定型髓内钉闭合复位内固定治疗胫骨干骨折18例,术后2 d开始训练膝、踝关节功能及股直肌肌力,采用Johner-Wruhs评分标准评定术后疗效。结果本组手术时间45~80 min,平均70 min。18例均获得随访6~22个月,平均14个月,骨折愈合时间14~24周,平均18周,患肢完全负重8~16周,平均12周。术后6个月疗效按照Johner-Wruhs标准疗效评定:优10例,良7例,可1例,优良率94.4%。结论髌上入路META-NAIL锁定型髓内钉治疗胫骨干骨折是一种手术切口小、置钉精确的微创手术,可以使近端骨折和多段粉碎性骨折在术中容易复位,操作也更省力。     

胫骨平台取骨微创植骨在交锁髓内钉固定胫骨骨折中的应用

目的 探讨胫骨平台取骨微创植骨在闭合复位交锁髓内钉固定治疗胫骨骨折中的临床疗效.方法 对49例胫骨干骨折采用闭合复位交锁髓内钉固定,于胫骨平台处取骨,采用自制的植骨装置进行微创植骨.结果 48例获得随访8～14个月,1例延迟愈合,其他患者术后4～6个月临床愈合.结论 在闭合复位交锁髓内钉固定胫骨骨折的手术中,采用胫骨平台取骨微创植骨的方法有利提高骨折愈合率,减少骨折的延迟愈合及骨不连的发生率.     

两种微创手术治疗胫骨下段骨折的临床对比研究

[目的]对比研究专家型胫骨髓内钉内固定和锁定接骨板内固定微创治疗胫骨下段骨折的临床疗效。[方法]本院自2012年1月~2015年1月收治59例胫骨下段患者,随机分为专家型胫骨髓内钉内固定微创治疗组(髓内钉组)和锁定接骨板内固定微创治疗组(MIPO组),对骨折治疗过程、愈合情况、功能进行评估。[结果]待手术时间(5.2±1.4 VS 6.4±2.3)d、出血量(62.4±25.3 VS 98.5±28.1)ml,髓内钉组优于MIPO组(P0.05)。透视次数MIPO组优于髓内钉组[(8±2 VS 15±8)次,P0.05]。所有患者得到有效随访,时间为12~24个月,髓内钉组骨折临床愈合时间(17±3)周,MIPO组骨折临床愈合时间(17.5±5)周。两组手术时间、最后的Johner-Wrushs评级差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]闭合或小切口复位髓内钉固定、闭合或小切口复位胫骨远端内侧锁定接骨板固定是治疗胫骨下段骨折两种有效的治疗方法,医生应根据患者、科室具体条件及自身熟练情况选用。     

髓内导航埋头钉技术在胫骨干合并胫骨远端骨折髓内钉治疗中的应用

目的观察髓内导航埋头钉技术在治疗胫骨干合并胫骨远端骨折中的效果。方法回顾性分析自2016-03—2018-06采用髓内导航埋头钉技术治疗的18例胫骨干合并胫骨远端骨折,术后采用踝关节功能AOFAS评分标准评价关节功能。结果本组均获得随访,随访时间平均14.5(12～18)个月。所有患者切口均一期愈合;骨折均骨性愈合,平均愈合时间4.6个月。术后12个月踝关节功能AOFAS评分:优13例,良4例,可1例。结论髓内导航埋头钉技术治疗胫骨干合并胫骨远端骨折创伤小,能有效复位、固定关节面骨折块,减少创伤性关节炎的发生,值得临床推广应用。     

交锁髓内钉治疗胫骨干骨折的临床分析

目的探讨交锁髓内钉治疗胫骨干骨折的临床疗效。方法对100例胫骨干骨折患者采用交锁髓内钉治疗,其中小切口切开复位66例,闭合复位34例,全部行有限扩髓,I期静力固定。结果 100例患者全部获得随访,平均随访14.2个月,骨折愈合率98%,骨折愈合平均时间5.2个月。疗效评定按Iowa评分标准,优良率98%。骨折不愈2例,胫前皮瓣坏死2例,下肢静脉栓塞2例,10例膝关节疼痛。未出现感染、内固定断裂、脂肪栓塞等其他并发症。结论胫骨干骨折的治疗首选交锁髓内钉,具有内固定符合生物力学、骨折愈合率高、愈合时间短等优点。     

闭合复位交锁髓内钉内固定治疗胫骨干骨折

目的 探讨C型臂X线机辅助下闭合复位小切口交锁髓内钉内固定治疗胫骨干骨折的效果.方法 应用闭合复位小切口交锁髓内钉内固定治疗13例胫骨干骨折.结果 13例术后X线检查均对线良好.A2、B2、C2各1例术后2～3个月复查X线片示骨折线清晰,遂取出近端静力孔螺钉予动力化.部分负重活动,3个月后骨性愈合.结论 闭合复位小切口交锁髓内钉内固定是治疗胫骨骨折的一种理想方法 ,具有手术创伤小、对局部血运破坏小、可早期功能锻炼、并发症少等优点,有利于骨折愈合.     

交锁髓内钉内固定术在股骨干骨折的临床应用

目的探讨交锁髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折的临床应用。方法采用小切口切开复位、交锁髓内钉内固定治疗股骨干骨折164例。结果全部病例均获随访,平均随访14个月,骨折均获得牢固骨性愈合,平均愈合时间为6个月,无感染、断钉等并发症。结论采用小切口开放复位、静力固定治疗股骨干骨折,固定牢固,骨折愈合率高,便于早期关节功能锻炼,是治疗股骨干骨折的最好方法。     

交锁髓内钉治疗胫骨骨折的临床体会

目的 探讨交锁髓内钉治疗胫骨肌折的临床应用。方法 ４２例胫骨骨折均采用小切口切开复位、交锁髓内钉内固定治疗。新鲜骨折不扩髓,陈旧性骨折采用扩髓方法。结果 全部病例均获随访,平均随访１年１个月,骨折均愈合。术中损伤大隐静脉１例,术后关节疼痛７例。结论 应用交锁髓内钉治疗肥骨骨折需掌握好适应证,并进行良好的复位。     

扩髓带锁髓内钉治疗股骨、胫骨干骨折不愈合、延迟愈合

目的　总结使用扩髓带锁髓内钉治疗股骨、胫骨干骨骨折不愈合、延迟愈合的临床经验。方法　回顾自 1999年 4月～2 0 0 1年 6月使用扩髓带锁髓内钉治疗股骨干、胫骨干骨折不愈合、延迟愈合病人 2 1例 ,其中股骨 8例 ,胫骨 13例 ,钢板固定术后 ,股骨 3例 ,胫骨 6例。普通髓内针股骨 5例。外固定架胫骨 2例。石膏固定胫骨 3例 ,骨牵引股骨 2例。均采用有限切口切开复位顺行扩髓 ,静力锁定加植骨术。结果　随访半年以上 18例 ,骨折均愈合 ,临近关节功能达正常。无感染、断钉等并发症。结论　采用有限切口切开复位、扩髓、静力锁定治疗股骨、胫骨干骨折不愈合、延迟愈合 ,具有骨折稳定性可靠、有利于骨折愈合和早期关节活动的优点 ,是治疗股骨、胫骨干骨折不愈合、延迟愈合的有效方法之一。     

微创交锁钉治疗胫骨干长节段粉碎性骨折46例分析

[目的]阐明闭合或有限切开复位交锁髓内钉内固定微创治疗胫骨干多节段粉碎性骨折的优越性和手术要点。[方法]选取46例胫骨干长节段粉碎性骨折使用微创交锁髓内钉固定为治疗组,随机选取同时期普通钛板治疗多节段骨折46例为对照组,对两组术中情况及术后疗效进行比较,其中治疗组采用闭合复位穿钉,有限切开复位螺钉固定,瞄准器锁定骨折远、近端。[结果]两组术后均随访12个月以上,两组在手术时间、住院时间、术中出血量及骨折愈合时间、远期功能疗效满意度方面均有显著性统计学差异。[结论]闭合或有限切开复位交锁髓内钉治疗胫骨干长节段粉碎性骨折较钛板有着微创、手术时间短、伤口愈合快、住院时间短,更符合胫骨生物力学、更高骨折愈合率、更少并发症等优越性。微创交锁钉为该类骨折提供了最佳骨折愈合时机、良好功能恢复,可避免关节僵硬,大部分患者可重返工作岗位。     

磁力导航交锁髓内钉治疗胫骨干骨折

目的评价磁力导航交锁髓内钉治疗胫骨干骨折的疗效,并与普通交锁髓内钉疗效进行比较。方法将60例胫骨干骨折患者随机分为两组：A组30例,使用磁力导航交锁髓内钉治疗;B组30例,使用普通交锁髓内钉治疗。记录两组远端2枚锁钉锁定成功时间,一次性锁定成功率。对两组分别就其平均手术时间、骨折平均愈合时间、HSSkneeratingscore法评定功能的各项指标进行比较分析。结果远端2枚锁钉锁定成功时间：A组（7．9±3．7）min,B组（18．1±4．8）rain,两组差异有统计学意义（t=15．78,P〈0．05）;一次性锁定成功率：A组97％,B组78％．两组差异有统计学意义（t=10．01,P〈0．05）;A组骨折延迟愈合1例,骨折短缩移位1例;B组断钉1例,伤口浅表感染l例,骨折延迟愈合3例。两组手术时间、术中出血量、并发症及HSSkneeratingscore法评定功能恢复优良率比较,差异有统计学意义（t=17．32,14．75,7．46,P〈0．05）。结论磁力导航交锁髓内钉治疗胫骨干骨折疗效满意,与普通交锁髓内钉比较有定位准确、手术时间短、创伤小的优势。     

Does open reduction increase the chance of infection during intramedullary nailing of closed tibial shaft fractures?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether an open technique used to obtain reduction during intramedullary nailing of closed tibial shaft fractures increases the risk of infection, compared to closed reduction and nailing. SETTING: University level 1 trauma center. DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventeen patients with 119 fractures from our trauma database who had sufficient follow-up and met study criteria. The patients were grouped by open versus closed reduction. Only OTA fracture types 42 A to C were included in this study. INTERVENTION: Locked reamed intramedullary nailing for closed tibial shaft fractures accomplished through either open or closed reduction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The presence or absence of infection as determined by the clinical presentation (erythema, warmth, purulent drainage, fevers, chills, increased pain at the fracture site), indicative laboratory work (complete blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein), and/or positive culture. RESULTS: There were 85 males and 32 females. The average age was 35.7 years; the average follow-up was 14.3 months. Of the 119 fractures, 79 had closed reduction whereas 40 had open reduction. The open reductions consisted of 13 with a formal incision (>1 cm in length), 22 with percutaneous incisions, and 5 with fasciotomies. There were no infections in the closed reduction group and 2 infections (5%) in the open reduction group. This difference was not statistically significant (P=0.1). The average time to union was 7.0 months in closed reductions and 7.3 months in open reductions. By latest follow-up, 107 fractures had reached union (89.9%), 1 had not (0.8%), and 11 were lost to final follow-up (9.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Limited open techniques can greatly facilitate the reduction of closed tibial shaft fractures but raise concern for infection through exposure of the fracture site. This study found that the rate of infection for open versus closed reductions was higher but not statistically different. Judicious use of open reduction techniques during intramedullary nailing of closed tibia fractures seems to have a minimal risk of infection.     

Distal Tibial Fractures: Intramedullary Nailing

The tibia is an exposed bone with vulnerable soft tissue coverage and is therefore predisposed to local soft tissue problems and delayed bone healing. The objective in distal tibial fracture treatment is to achieve stable fixation patterns with a minimum of soft-tissue affection. Thus, the risk of soft tissue breakdown and bone healing complications is more likely related to open reduction and plating. Percutaneous, minimally invasive intramedullary nailing is a proven fixation mode for fracture stabilization in tibial shaft fractures. Anticipating the pitfalls, intramedullary nailing meets the requirements of the method of choice in distal tibial fracture fixation. In conclusion, intramedullary nailing of distal tibial fractures is a reliable method of fixation, possessing the advantages of closed reduction and symmetric fracture stabilization of an area with a delicate soft tissue situation, but prospective randomized trials are needed to compare modern intramedullary fracture fixation with modern plate fixation in distal tibial fractures.     

Eight years' clinical experience with the Orthofix tibial nailing system in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures

Intramedullary nailing has become a popular and effective procedure for the treatment of most tibial fractures. However, concerns regarding difficulties with reduction, the use and extent of intramedullary reaming, and hardware failure are probably the only constraints to its widespread use. In this prospective study, we present the clinical and radiographic results of the Orthofix tibial nailing system used in the treatment of tibial shaft fractures. One hundred and fifteen fresh tibial fractures in the same number of patients with a mean age of 37.5 years (17-85 years) were treated with operative stabilisation using the Orthofix tibial nailing system. All of the operations took place in a conventional operating theatre, on a simple tranlucent operating table and with manual reduction of the fracture. In the majority of the cases closed reduction and conventional reaming were performed and the mean duration of the operation was 38 min. Fracture healing occurred at 16 weeks (11-30 weeks) and was confirmed both clinically and radiographically. In six cases (two severely comminuted and four segmental fractures) delayed union occurred, however there were no tibial non-unions necessitating re-operation. There were no substantial differences in time to fracture union or in the rate of complications related to minimal open reduction. In addition, there seem to be more benefits than risks in the use of power intramedullary reaming during intramedullary fixation of tibial shaft fractures. In conclusion, most tibial shaft fractures can effectively and safely be treated using this type of locking intramedullary nailing device, with relatively few complications, and with satisfactory long-term clinical results.     

Permanent reduction plate and intramedullary nailing of open tibia fractures: Do we need to take them out?

IntroductionProvisional reduction plating has been advocated as a reduction aid for tibial shaft fractures. Concerns regarding soft tissue stripping, infection, wound complications and nonunion have been postulated. Recent studies investigating reduction plating present patient cohorts where plates are removed or left to the discretion of the surgeon. This study aims to identify a cohort of open tibial shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing aided by permanent reduction plating. Our hypothesis is that permanent reduction plating in conjunction with intramedullary nailing of open tibia fractures does not increase risk of nonunion, infection or time to fracture union compared to intramedullary nailing alone.MethodsAn IRB approved retrospective study was performed using trauma registry data from January 2014 to June 2018 at a Level 1 trauma center. Open AO/OTA 41A/42 A-C/43A tibial shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nail alone (IM) or intramedullary nail and permanent reduction plates (PP) were included in patients over 18 years of age with at least six month follow up or until fracture union. Patient demographics, fracture characteristics, mechanism of injury, medical comorbidities, and length of follow up were recorded along with time to union, incidence of nonunion and treatment for documented or suspected infections.ResultsDuring the study period, 389 patients underwent tibial intramedullary nailing with 162 identified as open fractures. 91 patients met inclusion criteria with 39 in the PP group and 52 in IM group. Statistical analysis revealed no difference between the two groups except more AO/OTA 42A fractures were noted in the IM group. Average follow up was 8.0 and 10.2 months for PP and IM respectively. Nonunion occurred in 2 PP group patients and 7 in the IM group (p = 0.29). Time to union was 5.5 months for PP group and 6.1 months for IM group (p = 0.39) with 4 infections in the PP group and 10 infections in IM group (p = 0.38).ConclusionDespite the small sample size, this study suggests that permanent reduction plating, in the setting of open tibia fractures, does not delay time to fracture union or increase risk of nonunion or infection.     

弹性髓内钉在儿童肱骨干骨折治疗中的应用

目的探讨弹性髓内钉治疗儿童肱骨干骨折的临床效果。方法对37例肱骨干骨折(经手法复位不满意或手法复位石膏固定后再移位)患儿采取闭合复位、小切口弹性髓内钉内固定治疗。除2例因手法复位失败采用有限切开复位外,其余均采用闭合复位。分别于术后3、6、12个月对患儿肩、肘关节功能进行评分。结果 37例均获随访,时间6～24个月,2例因钉尾过长或折弯致肱骨进针点疼痛和钉尾刺激反应,拔钉后症状消失。骨折全部骨性愈合,愈合时间3～6个月。均无感染、短缩、旋转畸形以及骨骺、神经损伤等并发症发生。采用Constant和Murley肩关节评分系统、Mayo肘关节功能评分系统评价疗效,术后12个月疗效:优20例,良15例,可2例,优良率为94.59%。结论弹性髓内钉内固定治疗儿童肱骨干骨折创伤小,可早期活动,愈合快,并发症少。