经皮微创内固定与切开复位内固定治疗肱骨近端骨折的临床疗效比较

目的比较经皮微创内固定（MIPO）与切开复位内固定（ORIF）治疗肱骨近端骨折（NeerⅡ、Ⅲ型）的疗效。方法回顾性分析自2005-01-2012—03采用MIPO和ORIF治疗的78例肱骨近端骨折的临床资料。结果ORIF组9例发生并发症。MIPO组6例发生并发症,2组比较差异无统计学意义（P=0．715）。Neer评分：ORIF组优10例,良3例,可1例,差1例;MIPO组优10例,良5例,2组比较差异无统计学意义（P=0．441）。2组患者在手术时间、术中术后出血量、住院时间、骨折愈合时间方面差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论对于肱骨近端骨折（NeerⅡ、Ⅲ型）的治疗,ORIF与MIPO治疗效果相当。     

微创接骨术在高能量胫骨上段骨折中的应用研究

[目的]比较研究微创接骨术(minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis,MIPO)与切开复位内固定术(open reduction and internal fixation,ORIF)治疗高能量胫骨上段骨折的临床疗效。[方法]回顾性分析本科2012年8月~2016年3月收治的69例AO 41-C2型胫骨上段骨折患者资料,根据手术方法分为MIPO组(37例)和ORIF组(32例)。两组年龄、性别、受伤原因、软组织损伤程度以及伤后至手术时间的比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。比较两组手术时间、术中失血量、骨折愈合时间和并发症。[结果]MIPO组手术时间显著短于ORIF组(t=2.287,P=0.027),术中失血量显著少于ORIF组(t=2.820,P=0.007);术后4例发生切口皮缘坏死,其中MIPO组1例(2.70%),ORIF组3例(9.38%),均发生在Tscherne3级软组织损伤病例,切口皮缘坏死发生率比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者均获随访,随访时间12~25个月,平均18个月。两组骨折愈合时间差异无统计学意义(t=1.608,P=0.115)。MIPO组2例(5.41%)发生内翻畸形愈合,ORIF组1例(3.13%),均无需矫形手术,两组畸形愈合率差异无统计学意义(χ~2=1.665,P=0.579)。末次随访时两组患者HSS膝关节功能评分差异无统计学意义(t=1.296,P=0.201)。[结论]MIPO和ORIF治疗AO 41-C2型胫骨上段骨折均可获得较好临床疗效,但MIPO对组织损伤小,手术时间短,术中失血少,术后软组织并发症发生率低,更适用于软组织损伤严重的高能量骨折。     

采用MIPPO技术不同钢板内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折的疗效比较

目的 探讨应用经皮微创钢板固定(minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis,MIPPO)技术治疗胫骨远端骨折的临床疗效. 方法 对2006年5月～2009年11月我院收治的82例胫骨远端骨折患者进行回顾性分析,其中经皮微创解剖钢板固定组(A组)35例,经皮微创锁定钢板固定组(B组)47例.比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、住院费用、骨折愈合时间、末次随访AOFOS评分、并发症发生情况等指标. 结果 82例均获得随访,时间16 ～48个月,平均(24.6±2.2)月.两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、骨折愈合时间、末次随访AOFOS评分、并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),A组的住院费用明显少于B组(P＜0.05). 结论 采用MIPPO技术两种钢板内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折均能够获得良好的临床效果,但应用传统解剖钢板能够明显降低医疗费用,适于临床推广.     

关节镜辅助复位内固定与传统切开复位内固定治疗胫骨平台骨折的比较研究

目的比较关节镜辅助下复位内固定(ARIF)与传统切开复位内固定(ORIF)治疗胫骨平台骨折的疗效。方法选取自2010-03—2014-12诊治的SchatzkerⅠ~Ⅳ型胫骨平台骨折110例,按分层随机分组分为ARIF组和ORIF组,术后12个月随访观察2组疗效。结果 ORIF组手术时间(90.4±11.1)min,ARIF组手术时间(119.3±17.2)min,ORIF组手术时间较ARIF组短,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);ARIF组53例中51例达到解剖复位,ORIF组57例中48例达到解剖复位;术后6个月ARIF组的膝关节功能优于ORIF组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);2组术中失血量、切口大小、并发症、术后疗效差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 ARIF技术有利于提高胫骨平台骨折复位质量,具有康复快的优点,提高了胫骨平台骨折的疗效。     

微创内固定与切开复位钢板内固定治疗肱骨投弹骨折疗效比较

目的比较微创内固定（MIIF）与切开复位钢板内固定（ORIF）治疗肱骨投弹骨折的疗效。方法肱骨投弹骨折55例患者中28例采取MIIF治疗,27例采取ORIF治疗。术中记录手术时间、出血量、术后住院时间;随访记录骨折平均愈合时间、并发症及肩、肘关节功能恢复情况。对两组疗效进行比较。结果所有患者均获随访,时间8～25（19.5±3.1）个月。与ORIF组比较,MIIF组在手术时间、出血量、骨折平均愈合时间及周围神经损伤、感染、筋膜间隙综合征、再骨折等并发症的发生率等方面差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。肩、肘关节功能评分按Rodriguez-Merchan评价标准：MIIF组优良率（27/28,96%）高于ORIF组（21/27,78%）差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论采用MIIF治疗肱骨投弹骨折,操作简单,手术安全,损伤小,固定合理,骨折愈合时间短,功能恢复满意。     

微创经皮锁定钢板与切开复位重建钢板内固定在治疗锁骨骨折中的疗效比较

目的 评价微创经皮锁定钢板内固定(MIPPO)与切开复位重建钢板内固定(ORIF)两种方法治疗锁骨骨折的疗效.方法 2011年1月至2012年6月,对42例锁骨骨折患者,分别采用MIPPO和ORIF两种方法治疗,观察术中出血量、手术时间、住院时间、术后并发症发生率以及骨折愈合时间、肩关节功能(Neer评分),并进行对比研究.结果 两组的手术时间、术后并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05);术中出血量、住院时间比较,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).术后42例随访6～ 12个月,平均9个月.MIPPO组骨性愈合时间平均(11.6±1.6)周,ORIF组平均(13.0±2.1)周,两组差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).功能评定按照Neer肩关节评分标准,MIPPO组总体优良率为91.7％,ORIF组总体优良率为86.7％,两组差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 经皮锁定钢板内固定较切开复位重建钢板内固定治疗锁骨骨折具有术中出血少、住院时间短、手术创伤小、骨折愈合快、功能恢复好的优点.     

微创内固定与外侧扩大入路切开复位内固定治疗跟骨关节内骨折的比较研究

目的 比较腓骨下小切口微创钢板内固定与外侧扩大入路切开复位内固定治疗跟骨关节内骨折的疗效.方法 回顾性分析2010年3月至2011年3月采用微创内固定(微创组)与切开复位内固定(外侧扩大入路组)治疗的92例SandersⅢ型跟骨骨折患者资料,根据患者性别、年龄、骨折分型进行配对,共有17对患者纳入.记录两组患者的手术时间、术中及术后出血量、骨折愈合时间及局部并发症的发生情况.应用美国足踝外科协会(AOFAS)踝与后足评分、疼痛视觉模拟(VAS)评分及简明健康状况调查表(SF-36)生活质量评分评价患肢功能恢复情况,并比较两组患者的疗效.结果 微创组和外侧扩大入路组患者术后分别获平均14.2、15.3个月随访.微创组与外侧扩大入路组的手术时间平均分别为(84.0±6.1)、(90.8±5.4)min,术中及术后出血量平均分别为(97.4±10.6)、(181.2±10.9) mL,SF-36评分平均分别为(60.2±5.9)、(49.8±5.0)分,两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).微创组与外侧扩大入路组的骨折愈合时间平均分别为(9.5±1.2)、(9.8±1.4)周,AOFAS踝与后足评分平均分别为(91.2±6.6)、(88.7±12.3)分,疼痛VAS评分平均分别为(1.8±0.7)、(1.9±0.7)分,两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).微创组1例患者出现跟腱止点疼痛;外侧扩大入路组1例患者出现伤口感染,1例患者出现术口延迟愈合,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).出现伤口感染,1例患者出现术口延迟愈合,两组患者并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义(x2=3.000,P=0.223). 结论 与切开复位内固定比较,微创内固定在功能评定与并发症发生率方面无明显差异,但更有利于提高患者的生活质量.     

经皮微创钢板内固定与切开复位内固定治疗成人胫骨远端骨折的Meta分析

目的:对经皮微创钢板内固定术(MIPPO)与切开复位内固定术(ORIF)治疗成人胫骨远端骨折的疗效进行Meta分析。方法:通过计算机检索Pubmed(1968年至2014年3月),Cochrane图书馆、中国知网数据库(1998年至2014年3月),手工检索相关的中英文骨科杂志。收集MIPPO与ORIF治疗成人胫骨远端骨折的病例对照研究,选择术后感染率、手术时间、术中出血量、骨折不愈合率、骨折延迟愈合、骨折畸形愈合率作为Meta分析的评价指标,按Cochrane协作网推荐的方法进行系统评价。结果:共纳入5项研究366例患者。Meta分析结果显示:MIPPO组感染率低于ORIF组[OR=0.23,95%CI(0.06,0.92),P=0.04];MIPPO组骨折不愈合率低于ORIF组[OR=0.16,95%CI(0.03,0.76),P=0.02];ORIF组骨折畸形愈合率低于MIPPO组[OR=7.46,95%CI(1.68,33.10),P=0.008];MIPPO组手术时间短于ORIF组[MD=-14.42,95%CI(-27.79,-1.05),P <0.05];MIPPO组术中出血量少于ORIF组[MD=-87.17,95%CI(-99.20,-75.15),P <0.05];两组骨折延迟愈合率比较差异无统计学意义。结论:对于成人胫骨远端骨折,与切开复位内固定治疗相比,经皮微创钢板内固定治疗手术时间短、出血量较少、术后感染率和骨折不愈合率低,但骨折畸形愈合率高。总体来看MIPPO较ORIF治疗成人胫骨远端骨折更有优势,但最佳治疗方案的选择应结合患者的病情进行综合考虑。     

微创内固定技术与切开复位钢板内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折疗效比较

目的 比较应用微创内固定技术(MIPPO)与传统切开复位钢板内固定治疗胫骨远端骨折的临床效果.方法 按奇偶数分组方法对56例胫骨远端骨折患者分别采用MIPPO(MIPPO组,28例)和传统切开复位钢板内固定(传统组,28例)治疗,分别记录手术时间、术中出血量和住院时间;对比分析两组术后功能恢复及并发症情况.结果 56例均获随访,时间9~24个月.骨折愈合时间:MIPPO组为127 d±10.2 d,传统组为145 d±13.5 d,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).骨不连及延迟愈合发生率:MIPPO组为0,传统组为6%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).踝关节Kofoed评分:MIPPO组为92.50分±1.50分,传统组为88.32分±1.32分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).结论 采用MIPPO技术治疗胫骨远端骨折创伤小,术中出血少,术后恢复快,可获得良好的踝关节功能.     

经皮微创内固定技术（MIPO）治疗踝关节骨折的疗效分析

目的比较经皮微创内固定技术（MIPO）与切开复位内固定术（ORIF）治疗踝关节骨折的疗效。方法自2009—01—2012—12对收治的88例成人踝关节骨折根据内固定方法不同分为闭合复位经皮微创空心钉及钢板内固定（MIPO组,38例）和传统切开复位内固定（ORIF组,50例）,比较2组手术时间、住院时间、骨折愈合时间、局部并发症发生情况及术后1年AOFAS评分。结果MIPO组在住院时间、切口感染发生率及骨折愈合时间方面明显优于ORIF组,差异有统计学意义（P〈O．05）。88例均获得随访6～36个月,平均18个月。结论与传统切开复位内固定相比,闭合复位经皮微创空心钉及钢板固定技术治疗踝关节骨折具有创伤小、切口美观、固定牢靠、骨折愈合率高、踝关节功能恢复满意的优点。     

Comparison study of two surgical options for distal tibia fracture��minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis vs. open reduction and internal fixation

The aim of this study was to compare the results between two surgical options for distal tibia fracture, i.e. minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) vs. open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and explore the benefits and defects of these two techniques. Thirty cases of distal tibia fracture (15 pairs of ORIF and MIPO) were submitted for pair comparison with consistence of gender, age and AO fracture classification. Indexes for evaluation included operative time, blood loss, healing time, time of recovery to work, implant irritation symptoms, and union status. Mazur grading standard was introduced for functional evaluation. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 13.0 was used for analysis. No malunion occurred and one case of osteomyelitis developed in the ORIF group. In the ORIF group, ten cases were evaluated as excellent, three as good, one as fair and one as poor. In the MIPO group, ten cases were excellent and five good. Paired t-test found no significant differences between groups on the indexes for analysis. In conclusion, the MIPO technique is not distinctively superior to ORIF in treatment of distal tibia fracture.     

Fractures of the distal tibia: minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis

Unstable fractures of the distal tibia that are not suitable for intramedullary nailing are commonly treated by open reduction and internal fixation and/or external fixation, or treated non-operatively. Treatment of these injuries using minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) techniques may minimise soft tissue injury and damage to the vascular integrity of the fracture fragments. We report the results of 20 patients treated by MIPO for closed fractures of the distal tibia. Their mean age was 38.3 years (range: 17-71 years). Fractures were classified according to the AO system, and intra-articular extensions according to Rüedi and Allg?wer. The mean time to full weight-bearing was 12 weeks (range: 8-20 weeks) and to union was 23 weeks (range: 18-29 weeks), without need for further surgery. There was one malunion, no deep infections and no failures of fixation. MIPO is an effective treatment for closed, unstable fractures of the distal tibia, avoiding the complications associated with more traditional methods of internal fixation and/or external fixation.     

经皮微创钢板内固定治疗胫骨干远端1/3骨折

目的：探讨经皮微创钢板内固定治疗胫骨干远端1/3骨折的临床效果。方法自2011年4月至2013年4月,对29例胫骨干远端1/3骨折患者,采用经皮微创植入锁定加压钢板内固定治疗,评估术中情况、骨折愈合情况、手术前后Johner-Wruh评分、术后患者满意度,以及不良反应发生情况等。结果29例患者均获得有效随访,平均随访时间（11.2±0.8）个月。平均手术时间为（70.7±12.5） min,平均术中出血量为（157.3±16.4） mL;患者X线平均愈合时间为（14.7±2.6）周,平均完全负重时间为（15.2±3.1）周;患者治疗后Johner-Wruh评分显著上升（P〈0.05）;术后平均满意度评分为（93.4±2.1）分;随访发现1例不良反应。结论经皮微创钢板内固定手术是治疗胫骨干远端1/3骨折的有效方法。     

不同植骨材料对跟骨骨折切口愈合的影响

目的研究两种不同植骨材料（白体髂骨、同种异体骨）对跟骨骨折术后切口愈合的影响。方法回顾性研究安徽医科大学第一附属医院自2009年1月至2012年12月采用切开复位AO钢板内固定加植骨术治疗的76例单侧跟骨骨折患者,其中男53例,女23例,平均年龄39．5岁。自体髂骨植骨40例（A组）,同种异体骨植骨36例（B组）。应用统计学方法对患者年龄、伤后至手术时间、切口干燥时间、切口愈合时间、术后24h切口引流量等进行评价。结果A组平均年龄（39．43±11．71）岁,伤后至手术平均时间（10．27±2．54）d,切口平均干燥时间（6．02±1．37）d,切口平均愈合时间（14．08±1．27）d,术后24h平均引流量（78．58±13．92）mL;B组平均年龄（39．53±110．52）岁,伤后至手术平均时间（9．14±3．19）d,切口平均干燥时间（8．08±1．02）d,切口平均愈合时间（16．14±1．84）d,术后24h平均负压引流量（96．69±13．57）mL。A组与B组的切口干燥时间、愈合时间、术后24h引流量的比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论自体髂骨植骨较同种异体骨植骨会缩短跟骨骨折切口的愈合时间。     

Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis with locking compression plate in patients with Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fractures

BackgroundPeriprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) remain one of the most challenging complications to address. Although the principal treatment modalities for Vancouver type B1 fractures are open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), surgeons have not yet reached a consensus on the optimal method for reduction and fixation. We therefore investigated whether minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) using locking compression plate (LCP) would lead to favorable outcomes for patients with Vancouver type B1 PFFs. In addition, we also compared the outcomes of patients treated with MIPO to those treated with ORIF.MethodWe retrospectively evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a series of 21 Vancouver type B1 PFFs treated with MIPO and LCP between February 2011 and February 2017. The mean duration of follow-up was 33.8 months. We also compared outcomes of these patients to those of patients with 19 Vancouver type B1 fractures treated with ORIF between April 2006 and December 2011.ResultsFracture healing without complications was achieved in 20 (95.2%) out of 21 cases in the MIPO group and in 14 (87.5%) out of 16 cases in the ORIF group. There was one case of fixation failure with stem subsidence in the MIPO group. In the ORIF group, there were 2 nonunion with metal failure. Operation time was significantly shorter and intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the MIPO group compared to the ORIF group. However, there were no significant differences in frequency of transfusion, time-to-union, walking abilities, modified Harris hip score, or complications.ConclusionThe radiological and clinical outcomes of MIPO using LCP in patients with Vancouver type B1 PFFs were shown not to be inferior to ORIF and resulted in fewer intraoperative complications than ORIF. If care is taken regarding the stability of femoral implant and optimal surgical techniques, MIPO may be a recommended option in the treatment of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic fracture.     

前方入路联合MIPO技术治疗肱骨干骨折的有效性和安全性

背景：由于术中广泛剥离、牵拉骨折周围软组织、影响骨折端血供,传统接骨板在治疗肱骨骨折有较高的骨不连发生率和医源性神经损伤发生率。 目的：探讨前方入路联合微创经皮接骨板内固定（MIPO）技术治疗肱骨干骨折的有效性和安全性。 方法：回顾性分析2010年1月至2012年12月收治的77例肱骨干骨折患者的临床资料。根据治疗方法分为MIPO组和对照组。MIPO组采用微创经皮接骨板置入技术进行骨折固定,对照组采用传统的切开复位内固定技术进行骨折固定。对两组患者的手术情况和术后功能恢复进行比较。 结果：两组患者手术顺利,MIPO组手术时间比对照组稍长,住院时间比对照组稍短,但两组间差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。MIPO组术中失血量、骨折愈合时间均显著少于对照组（P＜0.05）。末次随访时,MIPO组的肩、肘关节活动度和DASH评分均显著优于对照组（P＜0.05）。两组患者术后均无严重并发症发生。 结论：采用MIPO技术治疗肱骨干骨折具有微创、固定牢靠、并发症少、术后功能恢复迅速且良好等优点,应在肱骨干骨折治疗中推广使用。     

经皮微创接骨板技术治疗胫骨远端骨折的疗效分析

目的 探讨经皮微创接骨板(MIPO)技术治疗胫骨远端骨折的的手术方法及疗效.方法 2006年3月至2010年2月采用MIPO技术治疗22例胫骨远端骨折患者,男8例,女14例;年龄24～75岁,平均45.3岁.术后定期复查X线片,观察骨折愈合情况,应用Johne-Wruhs方法评估患肢功能和骨折愈合情况.结果 所有患者术后获6～33个月(平均14个月)随访.全部患者骨折均获愈合,愈合时间为15～24周,平均18.6周,1例出现软组织损伤.按照Johner-Wruhs评分评定疗效:优12例,良9例,可1例,优良率为95.5%.结论应用MIPO技术治疗胫骨远端骨折,可有效提高骨折愈合率,获得良好功能,并能减少并发症的发生.

Abstract：

Objective To report the efficacy of treatment of distal tibial fractures with minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO). Methods From March 2006 to January 2010, 22 cases of distal tibial fractures were treated with close reduction and the MIPO technique. They were 8 men and 14 women,with an average age of 45. 3 years (range, 24 to 75 years). The fracture healing was observed through regular follow-up radiography. Functional recovery of affected lower extremity was evaluated according to Johner-Wruhs scoring system. Results All the patients were followed up for an average of 14 months (range,6 to 33 months). All the fractures were healed after an average time of 18. 6 weeks (range, 15 to 24 weeks). Soft tissue problem occurred in only one case. According to Johner-Wruhs scoring, 12 cases were excellent, 9 good and one fair. The total excellent to good rate was 95. 5%. Conclusion In treatment of distal tibial fractures, MIPO technique can improve fracture healing and functional recovery through decreasing postoperative complications.     

Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis of distal tibial fractures: a comparison of medial and lateral plating

PurposeThe hypothesis of this study was that lateral minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO) would be comparable with medial MIPO with regard to clinical and radiographic results. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of medial and lateral MIPO for treatment of distal tibial fractures.Materials and methodsBetween June 2005 and February 2009, 24 patients with a distal tibia fracture were treated using MIPO. Patients were divided into two groups according to the MIPO methods used; 12 patients were fixated by medial MIPO (group M) and the other 12 patients by lateral MIPO (group L). These two groups were compared with regard to time to union. Clinical results were assessed by use of the IOWA ankle-rating system and the range of ankle motion at last follow-up. Mean operation time and postoperative complications were evaluated by chart review. Radiographic results were assessed on the basis of tibial angulation and shortening at last follow-up.ResultsRadiological evidence of bony union was observed for all study subjects. Mean union time was not significantly different between the two groups. Mean IOWA score, range of ankle motion, and operation time were no different between the two groups. No significant difference in angulation and shortening was observed between the groups, and no patient had an angular deformity >5° or tibial shortening >10 mm at the last follow-up. Skin irritation was encountered in one case in group M and limited motion because of entrapment of the tibialis anterior muscle was observed in one patient in group L.ConclusionBoth medial and lateral MIPO produced good clinical and radiological results for distal tibial fractures. Lateral MIPO may be an effective option when soft tissue condition on the medial side of the distal tibia is poor or when the fracture line is close to the ankle joint.     

Treatment of distal tibial fractures: plate versus nail

A study of 24 patients who sustained an extra-articular fracture of the distal third of the tibial shaft was performed to determine the effect of the type of treatment, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or closed reduction and intramedullary (IM) nailing, on the occurrence of malalignment. All patients were treated in our clinic between 1993 and 2001 for a fracture in the distal third of the tibia. Twelve patients treated with ORIF were matched to 12 patients treated with IM nailing, with regard to gender, age decade, and the AO classification of the fracture. The group treated with IM nailing was assessed after a mean 6.0 years versus ORIF after a mean of 4.5 years. Two patients treated with ORIF versus six patients treated with IM nailing had a malalignment of the tibia. Furthermore, we found no difference with regard to time to union, non-union, hardware failure or deep infections between ORIF and IM nailing. Our results suggest that control of alignment is difficult with IM nailing of distal tibial fractures. For optimal alignment we advise considering the use of ORIF for closed and type I open extra-articular fractures in the distal third of the tibia.