[1]彭鹏豪 乔荣勤△ 刘铭柏 黄鹏 叶勇光.跗骨窦小切口与外侧L型切口治疗跟骨骨折的对照研究[J].中国中医骨伤科杂志,2017,25(06):10-14.
　PENG Penghao QIAO Rongqin LIU Mingbo HUANG Peng YE Yongguang.A Comparative Study of Tibial Sinus Small Incision and Lateral L Type Incision in the Treatment of Calcaneal Fractures[J].Chinese Journal of Traditional Medical Traumatology & Orthopedics,2017,25(06):10-14.
点击复制

跗骨窦小切口与外侧L型切口治疗跟骨骨折的对照研究()
分享到：

《中国中医骨伤科杂志》[ISSN:1005-0205/CN:42-1340/R]

卷:
第25卷
期数:
2017年06期
页码:
10-14
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2017-07-08

文章信息/Info

Title:
A Comparative Study of Tibial Sinus Small Incision and Lateral L Type Incision in the Treatment of Calcaneal Fractures
文章编号:
1005-0205(2017)06-0010-05
作者:
彭鹏豪1 乔荣勤1△ 刘铭柏1 黄鹏1 叶勇光2
1.广州中医药大学附属骨伤科医院(广州,510240)
2.广州市正骨医院
△.通信作者 E-mail:909705845@qq.com
Author(s):
PENG Penghao1 QIAO Rongqin1△ LIU Mingbo1 HUANG Peng1 YE Yongguang2
1.Orthopaedic Hospital, Affiliated to Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510240, China;
2.Guangzhou Orthopedic Hospital, Guangzhou 510240, China.
关键词:
跟骨骨折;  跗骨窦小切口;  微创;  跟骨外侧L型切口;  伤口并发症
Keywords:
calcaneal fractures;  tarsal sinus small incision;  minimally invasive;  calcaneal lateral L type incision;  wound complications
分类号:
R683.42
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的:比较跗骨窦小切口结合手法整复和跟骨外侧L型切口治疗跟骨关节内骨折的临床疗效。方法:选择2013年9月至2016年9月广州中医药大学附属骨伤科医院90例单侧跟骨骨折病人作为研究对象。将90例病人按随机数字表随机分为跗骨窦小切口结合手法整复内固定组(微创组)和外侧L型切口内固定组(常规组),统计两组患者手术等待时间、手术时间、术后切口并发症、术后第1天VAS评分,测量术前、术后及末次随访Bohler角、Gissane角,采用美国足踝外科协会(AOFAS)踝后足评分对手术效果进行评估。结果:所有患者均获得3～18个月随访,所有骨折均获得骨性愈合,微创组手术时间、术后切口并发率、术后第1天VAS评分均少于常规组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。影像学评价两组术后及末次随访Bohler角、Gissane角均较术前提高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),两组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。SandersⅡ型骨折AOFAS踝后足评分微创组高于常规组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),而对于SandersⅢ型骨折常规组的AOFAS踝后足评分高于微创组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:跗骨窦小切口治疗SandersⅡ型及简单的SandersⅢ型跟骨骨折,临床疗效明确,值得临床推广,但对于复杂的SandersⅢ型骨折外侧L型切口仍有不可替代的优越性,因此术前应明确骨折类型,选择最佳手术入路。
Abstract:
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of tarsal sinus small incision combined with manipulative reduction and calcaneal lateral L type incision in the treatment of intra-articular calcaneal fractures. Methods: From September 2013 to September 2016, 90 patients with unilateral calcaneal fractures in orthopedics hospital affiliated to Guangzhou university of traditional Chinese medicine were chosen as the research object. They were randomly divided into tarsal sinus small incision combined with manipulative reduction and internal fixation group(minimally invasive group)and lateral L type incision fixation group(routine group)according to random number table. The time waiting for surgery, the operative time, the postoperative incisional complications, and the postoperative first day VAS score in two groups were recorded. The Bohler angle and the Gissane angle of postoperative, postoperative and last follow-up were measured. The surgical effect was evaluated by the American foot and ankle surgery association(AOFAS)ankle hind foot score. Results: All patients were followed up for 3～18 months. All fractures were bone healed. The operative time, the complication rate, and the VAS score first day after operation in minimally invasive group were lesser than the conventional group(P<0.05). The Bohler angle and Gissane angle in imaging evaluation of the two groups after operation and the last follow-up were significantly higher than those before the operation(P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups after operation(P>0.05). The AOFAS score of ankle with Sanders type II fractures in minimally invasive group was higher than that of the conventional group(P<0.05). But the AOFAS score of ankle with Sanders type Ⅲ fractures in minimally invasive group was lower than the conventional group(P<0.05). Conclusion: Tarsal sinus small incision in the treatment of Sanders type Ⅱ and simple Sanders type Ⅲ calcaneal fractures are has an explicit clinical efficacy, and it is worthy for promotion. For complex Sanders type Ⅲ fractures, lateral L type incision still has irreplaceable superiority. Therefore, the type of fracture should be made clear before surgery and to choose the best surgical approach.

参考文献/References:

[1] Sanders R,Vaupel ZM,Erdogan M,et al.Operative treatment of displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures:long-term(10-20 years)results in 108 fractures using a prognostic CT classification [J].J Orthop Trauma,2014,28(10):551-563.
[2] 伍凯,林健,黄建华,等.经跗骨窦切口与经外侧“L”型切口治疗SandersⅢ型骨折的疗效比较[J].中华骨科杂志,2015,35(8):825-832.
[3] 何能斌,施忠民.新型跟骨微创解剖锁定钢板[J].国际骨科学杂志,2015,36(1):75-78.
[4] Bibbo C,Ehrlich DA,Nguyen HM,et al.Low wound complication rates for the lateral extensile approach for calcaneal ORIF when the lateral calcaneal artery is patent[J].Foot Ankle Int,2014,35(7):650-656.
[5] Manouk Backes,Tim Schepers M,Suzan H,et al.Woundinfections following open reduction and internal fixation of calcaneal fractures with an extended lateral approach[J].Int Orthop,2014,38(4):767-773.
[6] Veltman ES,Doornberg JN,Stufkens SA,et al. Long-term outcomes of 1730 calcaneal fractures:systematic review of the literature[J].Foot Ankle Surg,2013,52(4):486-490.
[7] Harvey EJ,Grujic L,Early JS,et al. Morbidity associated with ORIF of intra-articular calcaneus fractures using a lateral approach[J]. Foot Ankle Int,2001,22(11):868-873.
[8] 申建军,冯康虎,王久夏.外侧横弧形切口与L形切口在跟骨粉碎骨折内固定治疗中的疗效比较[J].中国中医骨伤科杂志,2015,23(12):25-28.
[9] 黄国伟,姜雪峰,周小建,等.改良跟骨钢板经跗骨窦入路治疗Sanders Ⅱ、Ⅲ型跟骨骨折[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2014,16(12):1038-1042.
[10] 祝海炳,李哲民,施忠民,等.小切口微型锁定钢板与传统切口钢板内固定治疗跟骨关节内骨折的对照研究[J].浙江医学,2014(1):19-22.
[11] 李来峰,王辉,赵仪云,等.跗骨窦切口联合经皮置钉技术微创治疗Sanders Ⅲ型跟骨骨折[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2015,23(20):1850-1853.
[12] 邹剑,章暐,张长青,等.跟骨骨折切开复位内固定术后伤口并发症的临床分析[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2006,8(7):647-649.
[13] 李灿杨,吴征杰,潘志雄.撬拨复位闭合穿针和切开复位钢板固定治疗跟骨骨折的临床研究[J].中国中医骨伤科杂志,2013,21(2):18-20.
[14] 张志海,罗毅文,王斌,等.钢板内固定配合中药熏洗治疗跟骨关节内骨折的临床研究[J].中国中医骨伤科杂志,2011,19(5):22-24.
[15] 朱敏,尹宏,余友映,等.跟骨钛板配合中医药治疗跟骨距下关节内骨折[J].中国中医骨伤科杂志,2008,16(12):39-40.
[16] 李伯州,胡牧,徐向阳,等.跗骨窦入路治疗Sanders Ⅲ型跟骨关节内骨折[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2014,16(12):1043-1048.
[17] Longino D,Buckley RE.Bone graft in the operative treatment of displaced intraarticular calcaneal fractures:is it helpful?[J].OrthopTrauma,2001,15(4):280-286.

更新日期/Last Update: 2017-06-15