单侧多功能外固定架治疗胫腓骨多段骨折36例体会

目的回顾评价外固定架治疗胫腓骨多段粉碎性骨折的优点。方法胫腓骨多段粉碎性骨折36例,对开放骨折先行彻底清创,显露骨折端,将粉碎劈裂骨折用拉力螺钉或钢丝克氏针行有限内固定,选择合适的位置进钉,复位后外固定架固定,闭合创面。结果随访8个月～2年,20例达到解剖复位,其他均达到功能复位。X线片显示骨性愈合时间为2—12个月,无骨不连发生。骨钉松动6例7钉;钉道炎性变5例8钉;创面感染4例。结论外固定架固定符合生物学固定原则,对骨折处血运破坏小,抗感染能力强,是治疗胫腓骨多段粉碎性骨折首选方法之一。     

42例交通伤开放性胫腓骨骨折V型外固定架治疗体会

目的　探讨治疗交通伤胫腓骨开放性骨折的固定方法。方法　应用AOV型管状外固定架治疗交通伤胫腓骨开放性骨折 ,闭合复位单纯应用V型外固定架 17例 ,切开复位有限内固定结合V型外固定架治病 2 5例。结果　其中 4 1例骨折愈合 ,愈合时间 4～ 18个月 ,平均 12 .6个月 ,1例闭合复位单纯应用外固定架治疗者于术后 1a骨折不愈合。结论　AOV型管状外固定架治疗交通伤胫腓骨开放性骨折 ,操作简便 ,创伤小 ,固定效果可靠 ,结合拉力螺钉内固定可以获得更好的复位效果并缩短手术时间。对于交通伤胫腓骨开放性骨折外固定架的动力化及拆除不要过早。晚期的针道感染需要重视。     

胫腓骨多段粉碎性骨折外固定架治疗（附63例报告）

目的：回顾评价外固定架治疗胫腓骨多段、粉碎性骨折的疗效及优点。方法;胫碎性骨折63例。对开放性骨折先行彻底清创,显露骨折端,将粉碎劈裂的骨折用拉力螺钉或钢丝克氏针行有限内固定,选择合适位置进钉、复位上外固定架固定,闭合创面,结果：随访8个月-2年,28例达到解剖复位,其它均达到功能复位。X线片显示骨性愈合时间为2-12月,无骨不连发生,骨钉松动10例11钉;钉道炎性变14例16钉;创面感染8例。结论：外固定架固定符合生物学固定原则,对骨折处血运破坏小,抗感染能力强,是治疗胫腓骨多段粉碎性骨折首选方法之一。     

应用掌指关节活动型外固定架治疗掌骨基底骨折

目的介绍掌指关节活动型外固定架在治疗掌骨基底骨折中的手术方法及经验体会．方法根据外固定架针杆夹的形状,于骨折近远端分别旋入4枚骨牵引针,闭合复位需根据骨折移位方向进行对抗牵引,通过调节万向关节矫正成角及旋转畸形,撑开连接杆矫正短编畸形．早期行邻近关节功能锻炼,固定4-6周后拆除外固定架。结果61例掌骨基底骨折,其中第1掌骨基底骨折25例,第4掌骨基底骨折17例,第5掌骨基底骨折19例,随访半年58例,关节功能恢复良好,各指活动无受限．结论掌指关节活动型外固定架以微创方式应用于掌骨基底骨折,操作简单,精确固定,肢体功能恢复满意．     

闭合复位交锁髓内钉固定结合阻挡钉治疗胫骨干骺端骨折

目的探讨应用阻挡钉矫正闭合复位交锁髓内钉内固定治疗胫骨干骺端骨折的成角和侧方移位畸形,从而提高骨折端稳定性的可行性。方法 41例胫腓骨骨折均采用闭合复位,术中透视,借助阻挡钉技术矫正骨折端的移位方向、成角和维持骨折端的稳定。结果疗效根据Johner-Wruhs临床评分:优30例,良9例,可2例,优良率95.12%。结论闭合复位交锁髓内钉结合阻挡钉技术治疗胫骨干骺端骨折,可有效改善骨折端的移位、成角,增加骨折端的稳定性。     

胫腓骨骨折石膏固定与外固定架固定疗效比较

目的：探讨直视下复位加石膏外固定与外固定架固定治疗胫腓骨骨折的疗效。方法：７６例胫腓骨骨折均行直视下复位,简单内固定,以后分２组,１组３９例行石膏外固定,另１组３７例行外固定架固定,从骨折愈合时间,并发症２个方面进行比较分析。结果：石膏外固定组仅有２例术后存有膝关节功能障碍和１例骨不愈合,它的骨折愈合时间短。结论;直视下复位石膏外固定治疗胫腓骨骨折个有简单可靠,骨折愈合快,并发症少等优点。     

单侧外固定架治疗复杂性肱骨下段骨折

目的 :探讨复杂性肱骨下段骨折的治疗方法。方法 :采用 Bastiani式单侧外固定架治疗 16例。开放性骨折立即外固定 ;闭合性骨折小切口复位外固定 ,骨折极度不稳加有限内固定 ;骨折感染、畸形及延迟愈合分别行病灶清除闭合冲洗、截骨矫形及加压外固定。结果 :术后随访 6个月～ 1.5年 ,除 1例外固定架松动骨折移位再次手术治愈外 ,余 15例骨折平均 3.6 (2 .5～ 5 .5月 )个月愈合。 2例肩、肘关节僵硬经手法松解、自主锻炼功能恢复。结论 :该外固定架操作简便、固定可靠、有利于骨与软组织修复 ,可有效治疗复杂性肱骨下段骨折。     

三种固定方式微创治疗胫腓骨多段骨折

目的介绍三种固定方式微创治疗胫腓骨多段骨折。方法采用三种方法治疗胫腓骨多段骨折共32例。a）闭合复位或小切口复位加经皮插入钢板内固定；b）闭合复位或小切口复位加交锁髓内钉内固定；c）有限内固定结合外固定支架外固定。其中开放性骨折10例，闭合性骨折22例。术后不辅以其他外固定，第2天开始不负重条件下积极行关节功能锻炼。结果32例均得到随访，随访6～24个月，平均12个月。其中1例外固定架固定后出现一处骨折不愈合，行植骨、钢板内固定后骨折愈合；3例开放性骨折出现切口感染，皮缘坏死，经换药治疗后治愈；余28例切口均达甲级愈合，骨折无延迟愈合、畸形愈合等。平均愈合时间17．3个月，根据Johner—Wruhs评分，优良率为78％。结论根据骨折情况。采用不同方法微创治疗胫腓骨多段骨折既能保证骨折复位及坚强固定，又能有效保护骨折断端血供，减少并发症发生。     

全程使用与分阶段使用外固定架和石膏外固定治疗胫腓骨开放性骨折疗效比较

目的　探讨分阶段使用单侧多功能外固定架 (UMEFA )和石膏外固定治疗胫腓骨开放性骨折的疗效。方法　 89例胫腓骨开放性骨折经清创、骨折复位后均予以UMEFA外固定。然后 ,将其分 2组。A组 5 3例为全程骨外固定组 ,其中 8例因并发症较严重 ,中途拆除外固定架 ,其余 45例外固定维持至骨折愈合。B组 36例为临时骨外固定组 ,伤口愈合、肿胀消退、骨折纤维连接时拆除外固定架 ,改用长腿管状石膏外固定。结果　B组并发症的发生率为 8% ,显著低于A组40 % ( P <0 .0 1)。B组患者骨折愈合的平均时间为 2 13.6d ,显著低于A组 2 68.4d( P <0 .0 5 )。B组患者骨折愈合的优良率为 83% ,显著高于A组 60 % (P <0 .0 5 )。结论　分阶段使用外固定架和石膏外固定治疗胫腓骨开放性骨折 ,具有治疗效果好、骨折愈合快、并发症少等优点。     

双臂桥式胫腓骨骨折复位外固定架的设计应用

目的 :探讨创伤小的外固定架治疗胫腓骨骨折。方法 :在胫骨结节 ,胫骨下端或跟骨上各横行穿 1根钢针 ,安装固定架通过旋转螺杆、旋转足托、布带或小夹板压垫法矫正骨折端的重叠、旋转、成角及侧向移位。结果 :骨折愈合率 1 0 0 % ,病人膝、踝功能正常。结论 :本外固定架创伤小 ,适用于各段胫腓骨骨折或合并小腿筋膜间隔综合征的患者。     

Tibial pilon fractures: a comparison of treatment methods

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective review of surgically treated distal tibia fractures was undertaken to determine whether treatment with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) was more efficacious in achieving fracture union than one of two external fixation methods. METHODS: Of the 60 study patients with pilon fractures, 21 patients were treated with an ankle-spanning half-pin external fixator, 15 patients with a single-ring hybrid external fixator, and 24 patients with ORIF. The severity of injuries was similar across groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in complication rates between groups, although two below-knee amputations were required in the ORIF group. A greater (p = 0.03) number of malunions occurred in the fractures treated with external fixation when compared with those treated with ORIF. Fractures in the external fixator groups showed this significant tendency to lose their initial adequate reduction, independent of bone grafting or fibula fixation. There was no significant difference between groups in the need for bone grafting. There was a trend for patients treated with a single ring hybrid frame to require late bone grafting for metaphyseal-diaphyseal nonunion. CONCLUSION: External fixation offers advantages in the treatment of the soft-tissue injury associated with pilon fractures, but malunion continues to be a problem with this method of fixation.     

介绍一种胫骨平台夹

目的研究一种新的骨折外固定器。方法 用自行研制的胫骨平台夹治疗４例胫骨平台骨折和１例股骨髁骨折。结果 经临床观察和随访，治疗效果满意。根据需要，闭合复侠后外固定器还可行加压固定治疗。结论胫骨平台夹具有操作简单，固定可靠的特点，适宜胫骨平台和股骨髁骨折的治疗。     

小切口复位单侧外固定架固定术治疗胫腓骨骨折疗效探讨

目的：观察小切口复位单侧外固定架固定术治疗胫腓骨骨折的疗效。方法：采用小切口复位单侧外固定架外固定治疗胫腓骨骨折42例，结果：随访6-18个月，无1例骨折不愈合或延迟愈合，无外固定钢针拔出或折断，所有病例均完全恢复功能。膝，踝关节功能无受限。结论：该手术操作简单，对骨折端干扰少，复位好。固定可靠，无畸形愈合。疗效满意。     

组合式外固定架治疗胫腓骨骨折

目的探讨组合式外固定支架治疗胫腓骨骨折的临床意义、疗效及指征。方法回顾分析自1996年1月至2001年11月间采用组合式外固定支架治疗的胫腓骨骨折152例,其中开放性骨折63例,闭合性骨折89例。采用小切口直视下解剖复位45例。改良了螺纹半针代替拉力螺钉治疗斜形、螺旋形或蝶块分离较大的不稳定性骨折。结果随访3～32个月,平均12个月,146例骨性愈合,占96%。骨折愈合时间2～8个月,平均5个月。其中解剖复位螺纹半针折块间加压组2.5个月,功能复位组5.3个月。带外固定架时间2～9个月,平均4.7个月。术后17例针道轻度感染,3例胫腓骨远端重度开放性骨折术后骨髓炎,无其它严重并发症发生。6例骨折不愈合的患者改为带锁髓内钉固定后愈合。结论组合式外固定架适用于严重开放性、粉碎性及邻近关节面的骨折。小切口直视下解剖复位有利于骨折的早期愈合。     

超关节外固定器治疗胫腓骨下段开放粉碎性骨折

应用８０－Ｉ型多功能外固定器跨踝关节超关节外固定治疗１５例胫腓骨下段开放粉碎性骨折踝关节骨折或脱位，结合软组织处理，预后优良率达９０％以上，本治疗方式解决了胫腓骨下段开放粉碎性骨折的固定困难，可使肢体恢复近下沉长度，另外对踝关节起到弹性固定作用，有利于踝关节骨折、关节周围韧带听凭的功能重建。故作者认为该治疗方式是治疗伴有踝关节稳定系统破坏的胫腓骨下段开放粉碎性骨折的可采用的手段之一。     

胫腓骨下段开放性粉碎骨折的治疗(附20例临床报告)

目的探讨胫腓骨下段开放性粉碎骨折的综合治疗。方法20例胫腓骨下段开放性粉碎骨折采用半环槽式外固定器固定、皮瓣转移、腓骨内移、骨折端加压并同期行上干骺端骨延长等综合治疗方法。结果伤口均一期愈合，所有皮瓣均成活，骨折临床愈合平均时间19周，7例因严重骨缺损经骨折端加压并同期行上干骺端骨延长后肢体均恢复正常长度。无1例针眼感染和血管、神经损伤。临床优良率为90％(18／20)。结论a)半环槽外固定器能克服胫腓骨下段开放性粉碎骨折的治疗困难，具有立体均衡固定。刚性可调，避免肢体受压。便于再次创面处理以及同期行骨折端加压和肢体延长等优点。b)半环槽式外固定器结合皮瓣转移、腓骨内移以及骨折端加压并同期行上干骺端骨延长等综合治疗方法是胫腓骨下段开放性粉碎骨折可选择的较好治疗措施之一。     

开放性胫腓骨骨折合并胫骨骨缺损的手术治疗

目的探讨开放性胫腓骨骨折伴有大段骨缺损的手术治疗方法。方法自2003—09-2012—04对51例开放性胫腓骨骨折伴骨缺损者根据骨缺损长度进行分组,其中24例一期行外固定架结合腓骨钢板固定骨折端,二期骨缺损处行髂骨植骨;27例一期行Ihzamv骨搬移技术治疗胫骨大段骨缺损。结果骨缺损均得以重建,患者肢体长度完全恢复,患者肢体长度与健侧之差均〈2cm,无一例出现畸形,皮肤软组织得到修复。结论外固定架结合钢板固定是治疗合并胫骨骨缺损的开放性胫腓骨骨折的有效方法,骨缺损6em以内患者肢体功能及长度得以重建。IHzamv骨搬移技术也是治疗胫骨大段骨缺损合并软组织缺损的有效方法,尤其适用于骨缺损长度大于6cm的患者。     

Management of unstable open and closed tibial fractures using the Ilizarov method.

Forty-one consecutive tibial diaphyseal fractures that required operative stabilization were treated using the external fixator and concepts of compression-distraction of Ilizarov. Eleven fractures had bone loss greater than 1 cm and were managed by simultaneously compressing the fracture gap and distracting through a corticotomy site to maintain extremity length. Thirty tibial fractures consisted of closed unstable and open fractures that were managed using the external fixator, emphasizing immediate weight bearing and gradual compression at the fracture site. Twenty-six fractures in 23 patients were available for follow-up evaluation six to 9.5 months after bone healing. There were six closed, two Grade I, eight Grade II, five Grade IIIA, and five Grade IIIB fractures. Serial wound debridements, wet-to-dry-dressing changes, wound- and fracture-site compressions (13 fractures), and split-thickness skin grafts (eight wounds) were used to accomplish wound closure. Chronic infections did not occur. All fractures healed from 12 to 47 weeks without bone grafting. Eight transosseous fixation wires are used, only two of which transfixed significant muscle. Approximately 10% of the 248 wire sites became inflamed and nine wire sites were treated for infection with antibiotics, skin release around the offending wire, or wire removal. Three wires fractured and one wire was replaced. One ring sequestrum occurred and responded to curettement. Angulation of 7 degrees-9 degrees occurred in five fractures (19%). The results were good or excellent in 25 fractures. One patient with 9 degrees varus in a distal fracture refused correction. Operative time was 60 to 90 minutes after developing a satisfactory protocol for frame application. This method allows immediate functional stabilization of tibial diaphyseal fractures and postoperatively allows ease of fracture gap closure and compression. The frame can be left in place for the duration of the fracture care. Application of the Ilizarov external fixator is slightly more complicated than traditional large pin fixators and requires more attention to detail intraoperatively and postoperatively, but can be a versatile tool in the management of complex tibial shaft fractures.     

Intra-articular fractures of the tibial plafond. A comparison of the results using articulated and ring external fixators

We retrospectively reviewed 60 fractures of the tibial plafond treated by either an ankle-sparing diaphyseal-epiphyseal technique using the Ilizarov ring fixator or by an ankle-spanning technique using a monolateral articulated external fixator. The Ilizarov ring fixator was applied in 24 fractures and the monolateral articulated transarticular external fixator in 20. Both techniques were combined with limited open reduction and internal fixation of the articular surface if necessary. Between three and nine years after the injury, all patients returned for clinical and radiological assessment and evaluation of ankle function using the modified Mazur score. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, gender, mechanism of injury, type of fracture or length of follow-up. The mean functional ankle score was 86 points for the Ilizarov group and 82 points for the articulated fixator group. The difference was not significant (p = 0.07). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to the radiographic score and late complications. Patients treated with the Ilizarov ring fixator had significantly better ankle and subtalar movement. We conclude that both techniques of external fixation are satisfactory methods of treatment for fractures of the tibial plafond, but that the total arc of movement of the joint is preserved better without bridging the ankle.     

The treatment of pilon fractures

Soft tissue complications, skin slough, and superficial infection lead to deeper infection and amputation. By avoiding these complications, it is expected that better results can be obtained. Two techniques are available to do this. The first is to limit incisions and use external fixation to obtain stability. Even in these cases, care must be taken with the soft tissues. The second is a staged reconstruction, whereby stage one allows soft tissue stabilization. To this end, the fibula is plated, and transarticular external fixation is performed; this maintains anatomic length, preventing soft tissue contraction and permitting edema resolution. The second stage, formal tibial open reduction and internal fixation, is performed with plates and screws when operative intervention is safe. These methods appear to be equally effective in reducing major soft tissue complications. Surgeons should treat these complex fractures with the method with which they are most comfortable. Surgeons who feel comfortable with techniques of internal fixation are best qualified to perform open reductions. Surgeons who have experience with percutaneous fixation and hybrid external fixator application should use this method. Surgeons with limited or minimal experience with pilon fractures should consider fibula fixation and transarticular external fixation followed by transfer to an orthopedic trauma surgeon for definitive management.