应用经皮微创钢板内固定技术结合锁定钢板和动力髁螺钉置入内固定治疗股骨远端粉碎骨折的效果比较

背景：治疗股骨远端粉碎性骨折方法较多,但缺乏相关比较,临床医生选择其治疗方法尚无统一标准。目的：比较应用经皮微创钢板内固定技术结合锁定钢板和动力髁螺钉置入内固定治疗股骨远端粉碎骨折效果的差异。方法：将37例股骨远端粉碎骨折患者按随机数字表法分为2组,采用经皮微创钢板内固定技术结合锁定钢板组19例,动力髁螺钉组18例。对两组患者的术中创伤、内固定后骨折愈合时间、并发症及功能恢复情况进行比较分析。结果与结论：与动力髁螺钉组相比,锁定钢板组置入内固定后出现骨痂时间和骨折完全愈合时间早（P〈0.05）,下地活动早,功能恢复好。根据Karlstorm膝关节功能评定标准,锁定钢板组优良率显著高于动力髁螺钉组（P〈0.05）。提示经皮微创钢板内固定技术结合锁定钢板治疗股骨远端粉碎骨折的效果优于动力髁螺钉。

Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis with locking TCP versus dynamic condylar screw in the internal fixation of comminuted fracture of the distal femur

BACKGROUND：There are many therapies for comminuted fracture of the distal femur,but no uniform standard for clinicians is considered to choose appropriate therapy.OBJECTIVE：To compare the effects of minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis（MIPPO） with locking TCP versus dynamic condylar screw（DCS） in the internal fixation of comminuted fracture of the distal femur.METHODS：Thirty-seven patients with comminuted fracture of the distal femur were randomized into two groups：MIPPO with locking TCP group（n=19） and DCS group（n=18）.General conditions,damages,healing time,complications and function recovery were compared and analyzed between the two groups.RESULTS AND CONCLUSION：The patients undergoing MIPPO with locking TCP could walk earlier,recovered better and had a shorter healing time（P 0.05）.According to Karlstorm Knee Functional Evaluation Standard,the excellent and good rate in the MIPPO with locking TCP was significantly higher than that in the DCS group（P 0.05）.Locking TCP combined with MIPPO technology was better than DCS in treating comminuted fracture of the distal femur.