LCP钢板和带锁髓内钉治疗新鲜胫骨干骨折的对比研究

目的回顾性分析LCP钢板和带锁髓内钉两种方法治疗新鲜胫骨干骨折的效果。方法2003年10月～2006年4月,收治55例胫骨干新鲜骨折患者。其中男39例,女16例;年龄14～62岁,平均39岁。左侧27例,右侧31例,其中3例为双侧。34处骨折采用带锁髓内钉固定治疗(髓内钉组),24处骨折给予LCP钢板内固定治疗(LCP组)。髓内钉组和LCP组伤后至手术时间分别平均为3d和3.1d。评估两组患者手术时间、膝、踝关节活动度、骨折愈合时间以及术后并发症。结果术后获随访8～26个月,平均13个月。手术时间髓内钉组为84.0±9.2min,LCP组为69.0±8.4min;平均住院费髓内钉组为19297.78元,LCP组为14116.55元,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。髓内钉组膝关节屈曲为139.0±3.7°,LCP组为149.0±4.2°,伸直分别为4.0±0.7°和0±0.4°,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。髓内钉组、LCP组踝关节背屈分别为13.0±1.7°、10.0±1.4°,跖屈分别为41.0±2.6°、44.0±2.3°,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。骨折愈合时间LCP组略早,平均为3.1个月;髓内钉组平均为3.3个月。髓内钉组术后X线片示1例下肢短缩2.5cm,1例骨折延迟愈合,3例钉尾问题,1例旋转畸形(20°),6例膝前疼痛;LCP组1例开放骨折(AO分型为42B型)的患者术后1周发生感染,1例胫骨远端1/3骨折出现成角畸形。结论带锁髓内钉和LCP钢板内固定治疗胫骨骨折均可取得理想效果。两种方法在膝关节和踝关节背屈度及跖屈度方面影响很小,都可保证骨折愈合。LCP钢板内固定并发症较少,且在手术时间和住院费用上更加有优势。

COMPARISON OF LCP AND LOCKED INTRAMEDULLARY NAILING FIXATION IN TREATMENT OF TIBIAL DIAPHYSIS FRACTURES

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment results of LCP and locked intramedullary nailing for tibial diaphysis fractures. METHODS: From October 2003 to April 2006, 55 patients with tibial diaphysis fractures (58 fractures) were treated. Of them there were 39 males and 16 females with an average of 39 years years ( 14 to 62 years). The fractures were on the left side in 27 patients and on the right side in 31 patients (3 patients had bilateral involvement). Thirty-four fractures were treated by intramedullary nailing (intramedullary nailing group) and 24 fractures by LCP fixation (LCP group). The average disease course was 3 days (intramedullary nailing group) and 3.1 days (LCP group). The operation time, the range of motion of knee and ankle joints, fracture healing time, and complications were evaluated. RESULTS: The patients were followed up 8-26 months (13 months on average). The operation time was 84.0+/-9.2 min (intramedullary nailing group) and 69.0+/-8.4 min (LCP group); the average cost in hospital was yen 19,297.78 in the intramedullary nailing group and yen 14,116.55 in the LCP group respectively, showing significant differences (P < 0.05). The flexion and extension of knee joint was 139.0 +/- 3.7 degrees and 4.0 +/- 0.7 degrees in intramedullary nailing group and 149.0+/-4.2 degrees and 0+/-0.4 degrees in LCP group, showing no significant difference (P>0.05). The doral flexion and plantar flexion of ankle joint were 13.0+/-1.7 degrees and 41.0+/-2.6 degrees in intramedullary nailing group, and 10.0+/-1.4 degrees and 44.0+/-2.3 degrees in LCP group, showing no significant differences (P>0.05). The mean healing time was 3.3 months in intramedullary nailing group, and 3. 1 months in LCP group. Length discrepancy occurred in 1 case (2.5 cm), delayed union in 1 case and nailing end trouble in 3 cases in intramedullary nailing group; moreover rotation deformity occurred 1 case and anterior knee pain occurred in 6 cases (17.1%). One angulation and open fracture developed osteomyelitis in 1 case 1 week postoperatively and angulation deformity occurred in 1 case of distal-third tibial fractures in LCP group. CONCLUSION: LCP and locked intramedullary nailing can achieve satisfactory results in treating tibial diaphysis fracture LCP has advantages in less complication, operation time and cost in hospital.