摘要
目的探讨肋骨内固定术治疗肋骨骨折的临床效果。方法对多发肋骨骨折,2006年8月～2008年8月采用非内固定手术(包括加压包扎、呼吸机辅助呼吸、胸腔穿刺等)治疗63例,2008年8月～2010年8月采用微创肋骨内固定术治疗60例,即采用日本Gunze Limited,Medical Material Center生产的各型号NiTi记忆合金-抓握式接骨板及江苏亚华生物科技工程有限公司生产的各型号聚左旋乳酸可吸收骨固定系统(刚子)微创内固定复位。比较2组疗效及并发症情况。结果与非内固定手术组相比,微创肋骨内固定组住院时间短[(15.5±3.4)d vs.(21.3±5.6)d,t=-6.996,P=0.000],疼痛轻[视觉模拟评分(2.1±1.1)分vs.(5.7±1.5)分,t=-14.854,P=0.000],镇痛药用量少[哌替啶总用量(67.5±27.0)mgvs.(128.6±33.6)mg,t=-11.094,P=0.000],但住院费用高[(3.8±1.8)万元vs.(1.5±1.4)万元,t=8.011,P=0.000]。结论 微创肋骨内固定术治疗肋骨骨折优于非内固定手术治疗,具有较高的临床应用价值。
Objective To discuss the efficacy of minimally invasive internal fixation for patients with multiple rib fractures.Methods Two groups of patients with multiple rib fractures were enrolled into this study.Non-internal fixation group（n=63） received compression bandaging,assisted mechanical ventilation,and thoracic puncture,during August 2006 to August 2008;internal fixation group（n=60） underwent minimally invasive internal fixation between August 2008 and August 2010.NiTi shape memory alloy embracing fixator（Medical Material Center,Gunze Limited,Japan）,and PLLA bio-absorbable fixation device（Yahua Biotech.Ltd.,Jiangsu,China） were employed in the internal fixation group.The efficacy and complications of the two groups were compared.Results Compared to the non-internal fixation group,internal fixation group had shorter hospital stay [（15.5±3.4） d vs.（21.3±5.6） d,t=-6.996,P=0.000],less pain [VAS 2.1±1.1 vs 5.7±1.5,t=-14.854,P=0.000],less pethidine consumption [（67.5±27.0） mg vs.（128.6±33.6） mg,t=-11.094,P=0.000],but significantly higher hospitalization expenses[（38±18） thousand RMB vs.（15±14） thousand RMB,t=8.011,P=0.000].Conclusion Minimally invasive internal fixation is superior to non-internal fixation in the treatment of multiple rib fractures.
出处
《中国微创外科杂志》
CSCD
2012年第1期64-66,共3页
Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery
