目的 评估两窗髂腹股沟入路治疗髋臼骨折临床疗效.方法 选择2006年1月~2012年1月沈阳市第十一人民医院髋臼骨折手术患者42例,分为改良组(22例)和对照组(20例),改良组采用改良后的两窗髂腹股沟入路切开复位内固定,对照组采用了标准的三窗髂腹股沟入路切开复位内固定方法.记录两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量,并据Matta影像学评分进行疗效判断.结果 对照组和改良组手术时间分别为(98.15±10.23)min和(55.46±9.15)min,两组比较差异有统计学意义(t = 1.790,P < 0.05).术中出血量分别为(520.4±54.0)mL和(232.0±25.6)mL,两组比较差异有统计学意义(t = 1.846,P < 0.05).据Matta影像学评分进行疗效判断,对照组和改良组优、良、可、差的病例数分别为17、2、1、0例和16、4、2、0例,两组优良率比较差异无统计学意义(95% 比 91%,P > 0.05).结论 改良后的两窗髂腹股沟入路与标准三窗髂腹股沟入路比较具有创伤小、出血少,解剖相对简单、手术时间短等优点.%Objective To assess the two windows ilioinguinal in the treatment of acetabular fractures clinical efficacy.Methods 42 cases of acetabular fracture from January 2006 to January 2012 in 11th People's Hospital of shenyang Gity were selected and divided into a control group (n=20) and improved group (n=22).Improved group were treated with two windows ilioinguinal ORIF, control group were treated with the standard three-window ilioinguinal approach open reduction and internal fixation methods.Operative time, blood loss were recorded, Matta imaging score determined efficacy.Results There were significant differences on operative lime [(98.15±10.23) min vs (55.46±9.15) min, t = 1.790, P < 0.05], blood loss [(520.4±54.0) mL vs (232.0±25.6) mL, t = 1.846, P < 0.05] between control group and improved group.Control group and improvement group of excellent, good, fair, poor number of cases were of 17, 2, 1, 0 cases and 16, 4, 2, 0 cases.There was no significant difference in the therapeutic results between the two groups (P > 0.05).Conclusion The modified ilioinguinal approach with the approach with fewer traumas, anatomy is relatively simple, shorter operative time.
展开▼
