多发性肋骨骨折两种处置方式的比较

目的 探讨多发性肋骨骨折治疗的有效方法.方法 按纳入及排除标准筛选34例常规外固定病例（常规组）及31例行肋骨内固定术病例（内固定组）,比较两组的住院时间、疼痛持续时间、呼吸情况,以及肺部感染发生率.结果 两组患者一般资料及合并肺挫伤和胸水情况比较差异无统计学意义;内固定组住院时间、疼痛持续时间、呼吸频率恢复时间、SaO2恢复时间和肺部感染与常规组比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.常规组肺部感染发生率为26.5％（9/34）,内固定组肺部感染发生率为3.2％ （1/31）,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.结论 肋骨内固定术优于常规外固定法.

Comparison of treatment of multiple fracture of ribs

Objective To study the effective treatment of multiple fracture of ribs. Methods According to the set standard, we recruited 34 patients treated by external fixation（ group A） and 31 patients treated by internal fixation（ group B） with muhiple frac- ture of ribs. To analyze the two ga＇oups in length of stay,duration of pain dolors, and respiration frequency. Results There was no sta- tistically significant difference between the two groups in some general information, pulmonary contusion,thoracic fluid, tec （P 〈 0.05 ） ; conventional group was 26.5% of lung infection （9/34） , the fixed rate was set at 3.2% of lung infection （ 1/31 ）. but significant differen~e was found between the two groups in length of stay, duration of pain, ere（ P 〈 0.05）. Conclusion For patienls with muhi- pie fracture of ribs, internal fixation is better thau external fixatinn.