不同内固定方式在多发肋骨骨折患者中的应用效果比较

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (0)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (0 KB) HTML (36 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective To compare the applaction effect of different internal fixation methods in the treatment of multiple rib fractures.Methods A total of 200 patients with multiple rib fractures admitted to our hospital from March 2017 to February 2019 were selected as research objects,and were divided into observation group and control group according to the principle of segmental randomization,with 100 cases in each group.Patients in the control group were internally fixed with nickel-titanium embracing fixator,while patients in the observation group were internally fixed with rib locking titanium plate.The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores,intraoperative blood loss,postoperative hospital stay and complications of the two groups were compared before treatment and 24 and 48 h after treatment.Results At 24 and 48 h after treatment,the VAS scores of the patients in the observation group were lower than those in the control group,and the amount of intraoperative hemorrhage was less than that in the control group,and the total incidence rate of complications was lower than that in the control group,the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).There was no significant difference in hospital stay between the two groups (P>0.05).Conclusion Compared with nickel-titanium embracing fixator internal fixation,rib locking titanium plate internal fixation applied in patients with multiple rib fractures can significantly relieve patient pain,reduce intraoperative blood loss,shorten hospitalization time and reduce the incidence of postoperative complications,which is worthy of clinical application and promotion.

Key words： Multiple rib fractures Internal fixation Pain Complications

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	LIANG Lei
	WANG Ze-xue

Cite this article:

LIANG Lei,WANG Ze-xue. Applaction effect comparison of different internal fixation methods in patients with multiple rib fractures[J]. 中国当代医药, 2020, 27(2): 74-77.

URL:

http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/ OR http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/Y2020/V27/I2/74

[1]	陈卫荣.外伤性多发性肋骨骨折的切开复位内固定的临床治疗[J].安徽卫生职业技术学院学报，2017，16（2）：41-42，45.
[2]	郝懿，吴骏，王立杰，等.预成型肋骨锁定钛板与钛镍记忆合金环抱器治疗多发性肋骨骨折的疗效比较[J].中国胸心血管外科临床杂志，2018，25（5）：397-400.
[3]	孟庆江.不同方式治疗多发性肋骨骨折临床疗效分析[J].中国医学创新，2016，13（19）：111-114.
[4]	吴进.应用肋骨接骨板内固定对比胸部护板外固定治疗多发肋骨骨折的临床疗效以及安全性研究[J].中国实用医药，2019，14（6）：44-45.
[5]	王庆淮，谭宁.多发性肋骨骨折Judet固定架手术内固定与保守治疗的疗效对比分析[J].广西医科大学学报，2015，32（4）：658-659.
[6]	郑晓宇，叶宁，邬少君，等.形状记忆环抱接骨板治疗多发性肋骨骨折[J].实用骨科杂志，2013，19（5）：456-457.
[7]	段民新，叶振铭，吴衢敏，等.多发性肋骨骨折两种处置方式的比较[J].武警医学，2014，25（4）：352-353，356.
[8]	王斌强.镍钛环抱式接骨器内固定修复多发性肋骨骨折：与克氏针应用安全性比较[J].中国组织工程研究，2015，19（21）：3419-3423.
[9]	莫云聪.镍钛环抱式接骨器内固定修复多发性肋骨骨折疗效和安全性观察[J].齐齐哈尔医学院学报，2017，38（2）：174-175.
[10]	王鹏国，薛锋，郭小琦，等.连枷胸保守治疗与内固定68例疗效比较[J].中国伤残医学，2016，24（1）：58-59.
[11]	孙发适，孙早喜.镍钛合金抓握式接骨板治疗多发性肋骨骨折[J].中华实验外科杂志，2015，32（2）：431.
[12]	武国栋，张子瑜，赵金超，等.胸腔镜钛镍合金爪形肋骨板治疗多发肋骨骨折合并血气胸的疗效[J].武警医学，2015，26（5）：446-448.
[13]	李强，李晓斌，乔庆，等.胸腔镜辅助可吸收肋骨钉与爪形接骨板联合应用治疗多发肋骨骨折的临床研究[J].创伤外科杂志，2014，16（2）：109-112.
[14]	隋铁泉，张志伟，杨洋，等.同期肋骨内固定手术治疗胸外伤合并多发肋骨骨折[J].中华胸心血管外科杂志，2014，30（1）：14-16.
[15]	陈晶.镍钛环抱式接骨器内固定对多发肋骨骨折患者术后VAS评分及并发症发生率的影响[J].山西职工医学院学报，2018，28（2）：17-19.
[16]	李彦玉，刘斌，王四海，等.多发性肋骨骨折内固定术与保守治疗的成本-效果分析[J].医学综述，2014，20（17）：3224-3226.