摘要
目的探讨胫骨骨折髓内钉固定动力化与非动力化的临床疗效。方法根据患者及其家属对治疗方案的选择,将我院85例胫骨骨折患者分为两组,其中对照组采用髓内钉固定动力化的治疗方案,治疗组采用髓内钉固定非动力化的治疗方案,观察并比较两组患者治疗后的临床效果。结果治疗组患者骨折部位愈合时间(131.34±37.45)d与对照组骨折部位愈合时间(133.12±37.98)d几乎相近,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗组患者日常生活、社会活动、抑郁、烦躁及疼痛各方面评分均高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。结论胫骨骨折的治疗方案,髓内钉固定动力化的治疗并不优于髓内钉固定非动力化的治疗,二者临床疗效无明显差异,髓内钉固定非动力化的治疗方案更能够缓解患者疼痛,提高生活质量,应该在临床上广泛应用。
Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of dynamic intramedullary nail fixation and undy-namic intramedullary nail fixation in the treatment of tibial fractures. Methods According to treatment choice of the patients and their families,85 cases of tibial fracture cared at our hospital were divided into two groups.The control group used the treatment of f dynamic intramedullary nail fixation,and the treatment group adopted the treatment of undynamic intramedullary nail fixation .The group-paired comparison of effi-cacy wasdone. Results The fracture healing time of the treatment group was （131.34 ±37.45）days which was almost the same as the healing time （133.12±37.98）days of the control group,the difference was not sta-tistically significant （P 〉0.05）.The scores of daily life,social activities,depression,irritability and pain in the patients of treatment were higher than the patients of control group,the difference was statistically signifi-cant （P 〈0.001）. Conclusion The clinical efficacy of dynamic intramedullary nail fixation and undynamic intramedullary nail fixation had no obvious differences in the treatment of tibial fractures,dynamic intramedul-lary nail fixation is not superior to undynamic intramedullary nail fixation,but the regimen of undynamic intr-amedullary nail fixation can relieve the pain of patients,improve the quality of life,should be widely applied in clinical.
出处
《右江民族医学院学报》
2015年第2期248-249,253,共3页
Journal of Youjiang Medical University for Nationalities
关键词
胫骨骨折
髓内钉固定动力化
髓内钉固定非动力化
tibial fractures
fixed dynamic intramedullary nail
non motorized intramedullary nail
