中国修复重建外科杂志

中国修复重建外科杂志

微创和传统切开复位内固定治疗桡骨远端不稳定骨折的疗效比较

查看全文

目的比较微创经皮掌侧植入和传统切开(Henry 入路)复位锁定钢板内固定治疗桡骨远端不稳定骨折的临床疗效。方法将 2013 年 10 月—2014 年 12 月收治的符合选择标准的56 例桡骨远端不稳定骨折患者纳入研究,随机分为微创组(26 例)和传统组(30 例),分别采用微创经皮掌侧植入和传统 Henry 入路切开复位斜 T 型锁定钢板内固定治疗。两组患者性别、年龄、侧别、致伤原因、骨折分型及受伤至手术时间等一般资料比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性。记录两组患者切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量及住院时间、骨折愈合时间;术后 3 个月桡骨茎突长度、掌倾角、尺偏角与术前的差值;术后 4 周及 3 个月腕部疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS),患侧腕关节屈伸范围、前臂旋转范围及握力占健侧的百分比(分别记为 FS%、FR% 和 HG%);术后 3 个月采用上肢功能评定表(DASH)评分评价腕关节功能。结果微创组患者切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量及住院时间均显著优于传统组(P<0.05)。两组患者术后切口均 Ⅰ 期愈合。患者均获随访,随访时间 10~16 个月,平均 12.6 个月。两组均无桡动脉损伤、螺钉过长或进入关节间隙发生。微创组 1 例术后发生正中神经一过性刺激症状,1 个月后完全恢复;传统组 2 例术后出现肌腱刺激疼痛症状,取出钢板后缓解。两组骨折愈合时间及手术前后桡骨茎突长度、掌倾角及尺偏角差值比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后 4 周微创组 VAS 评分明显低于传统组,FS%、FR%、HG% 明显高于传统组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);而术后 3 个月两组间上述指标比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后 3 个月微创组 DASH 评分明显低于传统组,差异有统计学意义(t=–5.308,P=0.000)。患者对术后切口美观感评价微创组明显优于传统组。结论微创经皮掌侧植入锁定钢板治疗桡骨远端不稳定骨折具有创伤小、切口隐蔽、腕关节功能恢复快等优点,患者易于接受。

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of minimally invasive percutaneous internal fixation and traditional open reduction via Henry approach and internal fixation in the treatment of unstable distal radial fractures.MethodsFifty-six patients with unstable distal radial fractures that met the selection criteria between October 2013 and December 2014 were randomly divided into minimally invasive group (26 cases) and traditional group (30 cases). They were treated with oblique T-shaped locking plate internal fixation via minimally invasive percutaneous approach or traditional Henry approach. There was no significant difference in gender, age, side, causes of injury, fracture classification, and time from injury to operation between 2 groups (P>0.05). The length of incision, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization time, and fracture healing time were recorded in 2 groups. The difference of the length of the radial styloid process, the volar tilting angle, and the ulnar inclining angle between at 3 months postoperatively and preoperation were compared between 2 groups. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, the percentage of the lateral wrist flexion and extension range, forearm rotation, and the hand grip strength (recorded as FS%, FR%, and HG% , respectively) were compared between 2 groups at 4 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. The wrist function was evaluated through the disability of arm-shoulder-hand (DASH) scores at 3 months postoperatively.ResultsThe length of incision, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospitalization time in minimally invasive group were significantly less than those in traditional group (P<0.05). The incisions of 2 groups were all achieved primary healing. All patients were followed up 10-16 months (mean, 12.6 months). There was no radial artery injury, screw too long, or screw entering the joint space. In minimally invasive group, 1 patient had the symptoms of median nerve irritation after operation, and recovered completely at 1 month; in traditional group, there were 2 cases of tendon irritation after operation. There was no significant difference in the fracture healing time, the difference of the length of the radial styloid process, the volar tilting angle, and the ulnar inclining angle between at 3 months postoperatively and preoperation between 2 groups (P>0.05). At 4 weeks after operation, the VAS score in minimally invasive group was significantly less than that in traditional group, and the FS%, FR%, and HG% were significantly higher than those in traditional group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in above indicators between 2 groups at 3 months after operation (P>0.05). The DASH score in minimally invasive group was significantly less than that in traditional group at 3 months after operation (t=–5.308, P=0.000). The patient’s aesthetic evaluation of postoperative wound in minimally invasive group was better than in traditional group.ConclusionFor treatment of unstable distal radial fractures, the metacarpal minimally invasive internal fixation has the advantages of smaller wound, incisional concealment, and quicker recovery of wrist joint.

关键词: 桡骨远端骨折; 微创; 切开复位; 锁定钢板; 内固定

Key words: Distal radial fracture; minimally invasive; open reduction; locking plate; internal fixation

引用本文: 钟泽莅, 吴超, 林旭, 胡海刚. 微创和传统切开复位内固定治疗桡骨远端不稳定骨折的疗效比较. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2018, 32(3): 322-328. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.201711140 复制

登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看全文内容。 没有账号,
登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看图表内容。 没有账号,
1. Hanel DP, Jones MD, Trumble TE. Wrist fractures. Orthop Clin North Am, 2002, 33(1): 35-57.
2. 贡小英, 荣国威, 安贵生, 等. 经掌侧入路治疗桡骨远端不稳定骨折疗效分析. 中华骨科杂志, 2005, 25(1): 50-53.
3. Zenke Y, Sakai A, Oshige T, et al. Clinical results of volar locking plate for distal radius fractures: conventional versus minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis. J Orthop Trauma, 2011, 25(7): 425-431.
4. 王继宏, 温树正, 樊东升, 等. 掌侧入路角度锁定接骨板与外固定支架治疗桡骨远端骨折的比较研究. 中华手外科杂志, 2015, 31(5): 353-356.
5. 王立, 邵新中, 张哲敏, 等. 腕关节镜辅助下闭合复位外固定治疗桡骨远端骨折. 中华手外科杂志, 2014, 30(5): 324-326.
6. 韦旭明, 荆振中, 殷渠东, 等. 跨腕钢板技术治疗桡骨远端粉碎性骨折的研究进展. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2015, 17(1): 90-92.
7. Rogachefsky RA, Lipson SR, Applegate B, et al. Treatment of severely comminuted intra-articular fractures of the distal end of the radius by open reduction and combined internal and external fixation. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 2001, 83-A(4): 509-519.
8. Lalone EA, Rajgopal V, Roth J, et al. A cohort study of one-year functional and radiographic outcomes following intra-articular distal radius fractures. Hand (N Y), 2014, 9(2): 237-243.
9. Heidari N, Clement H, Kosuge D, et al. Is sparing the pronator quadratus muscle possible in volar plating of the distal radius? J Hand Surg (Eur Vol), 2012, 37(5): 402-406.
10. Lee SK, Chaudhry S. Open reduction and internal fixation through fracture fragment specific fixation methods. Oper Tech Orthop, 2009, 19(2): 70-76.
11. 姜保国, 张殿英, 付中国, 等. 桡骨远端骨折的治疗建议. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2010, 12(11): 1053-1056.
12. Orbay JL, Touhami A, Orbay C. Fixed angle fixation of distal radius fractures through a minimally invasive approach. Tech Hand Up Extrem Surg, 2005, 9(3): 142-148.
13. 邓芒, 傅中国, 张殿英, 等. 桡骨远端骨折掌侧与背侧接骨板固定的生物力学比较. 中华手外科杂志, 2008, 24(4): 213-216.
14. 郭雅娣, 闵捷, 李峻, 等. 单一锁定加压钢板掌侧入路治疗桡骨远端骨折. 中华手外科杂志, 2014, 30(3): 235-236.
15. Vosbikian MM, Ketonis C, Huang R, et al. Optimal positioning for Volar Plate Fixation of a distal radius fracture determining the distal dorsal cortical distance. Orthop Clin North Am, 2016, 47(1): 235-244.
16. Imatani J, Noda T, Morito Y, et al. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for comminuted fractures of the metaphysis of the radius. J Hand Surg (Br), 2005, 30(2): 220-225.
17. Swigart CR, Badon MA, Bruegel VL, et al. Assessment of pronator quadratus repair integrity following volar plate fixation for distal radius fractures: a prospective clinical cohort study. J Hand Surg (Am), 2012, 37(9): 1868-1873.
18. Hershman SH, Immerman I, Bechtel C, et al. The effects of pronator quadratus repair on outcomes after volar plating of distal radius fractures. J Orthop Trauma, 2013, 27(3): 130-133.
19. 樊健, 蒋波, 陈凯, 等. 比较不切开与切开旋前方肌对桡骨远端骨折掌侧钢板内固定术后疗效的影响. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2015, 17(10): 902-904.
20. Mccann PA, Amirfeyz R, Wakeley C, et al. The volar anatomy of the distal radius-an MRI study of the FCR approach. Injury, 2010, 41(10): 1012-1014.