切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志 ›› 2019, Vol. 05 ›› Issue (05) : 250 -254. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2019.05.002

所属专题: 文献

足部骨折

缝合锚与克氏针张力带内固定治疗第五跖骨基底部骨折的比较研究
左照光1, 曾文波2, 汪国栋3, 蔡贤华3, 刘曦明4,()   
  1. 1. 430065 武汉,湖北中医药大学研究生院
    2. 401120 重庆,重庆医科大学附属第三医院
    3. 430070 武汉,中国人民解放军中部战区总医院骨科
    4. 430065 武汉,湖北中医药大学研究生院;430070 武汉,中国人民解放军中部战区总医院骨科
  • 收稿日期:2019-05-16 出版日期:2019-10-05
  • 通信作者: 刘曦明
  • 基金资助:
    湖北省自然科学基金专项(2017ACA099); 湖北省卫生和计划生育委员会联合基金项目(WJ2018H0064)

Comparative study of suture anchor and Kirschner wire tension band internal fixation for the treatment of Fifth humeral base fracture

zhaoguang Zuo1, wenbo Zeng2, guodong Wang3, xianhua Cai3, ximing Liu4,()   

  1. 1. Graduate School of Hubei University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wuhan 4300652, China
    2. The Third Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 401120, China
    3. Department of Orthopaedics, Central Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Wuhan 430070, China
    4. Graduate School of Hubei University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wuhan 4300652, China; Department of Orthopaedics, Central Hospital of Chinese People's Liberation Army, Wuhan 430070, China
  • Received:2019-05-16 Published:2019-10-05
  • Corresponding author: ximing Liu
引用本文:

左照光, 曾文波, 汪国栋, 蔡贤华, 刘曦明. 缝合锚与克氏针张力带内固定治疗第五跖骨基底部骨折的比较研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2019, 05(05): 250-254.

zhaoguang Zuo, wenbo Zeng, guodong Wang, xianhua Cai, ximing Liu. Comparative study of suture anchor and Kirschner wire tension band internal fixation for the treatment of Fifth humeral base fracture[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2019, 05(05): 250-254.

目的

比较缝合锚与克氏针张力带内固定治疗第五跖骨基底部骨折的疗效。

方法

回顾性分析2013年6月至2018年10月接受治疗并获得完整随访的33例Lawrence-Ⅰ区第五跖骨基底部骨折患者的病例资料,根据内固定的方式不同分为缝合锚组(15例)和克氏针张力带组(18例)。记录并比较两组术中手术时间、骨折复位满意程度、愈合时间及术后功能优良率。

结果

缝合锚组和克氏针张力带组在骨折复位满意程度、愈合时间、术后并发症方面无差异,缝合锚组手术时间比克氏针张力带组短,两组手术时间比较差异具有统计学意义(t=-8.714,P<0.05),手术切口长度比较具有统计意义(t=-13.867,P<0.05),术中透视次数比较具有统计意义(t=-6.834,P<0.05),末次随访,按美国足踝协会(AOFAS)中前足功能评分,两组功能恢复差异有统计学意义(t=4.948,P<0.05)。

结论

缝合锚具有简便、微创、有效、无需再取内固定等特点,与克氏针张力带相比,减少了手术时间,缩短手术切口长度并减少了透视次数,是治疗第五跖骨基底部骨折的一种有效方法。

Objective

Comparison of suture anchor and Kirschner wire tension band internal fixation for the treatment of Fifth humeral base fracture.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of 33 patients with a fifth tibiofibular basal fracture in Lawrence-I were underwent treatment and complete follow-up from June 2013 to October 2018 according to the way of internal fixation, patients were divided into suture anchor group (15 cases) and Kirschner wire tension band group (18 cases). The intraoperative time, fracture reduction satisfaction, injury healing time and postoperative functional excellence rate were recorded and compared between two groups.

Results

There was no difference in the degree of fracture reduction, healing time, and postoperative complications between the suture anchor group and the Kirschner wire tension band group, The difference between the operation time of two groups was statistically significant (t=-8.714, P<0.05). The length of the surgical incision was statistically significant (t=-13.867, P<0.05). Comparison of intraoperative perspectives is statistically significant(t=-6.834, P<0.05). At the last follow-up, according to the forefoot function score of the American Foot and Ankle Association (AOFAS), the difference in functional recovery between the two groups was statistically significant (t=4.948, P<0.05).

Conclusion

Suture anchor is simple, minimally invasive, effective and no need to take internal fixation. Compared with Kirschner wire tension band, the operation time is reduced, the length of the surgical incision is shortened, and the number of fluoroscopy is reduced. It is an effective method for the treatment of the fifth metatarsal humeral fracture.

表1 两组跖骨基底部骨折患者的一般资料比较
表2 两组跖骨基底部骨折患者的手术时间及愈合情况比较
表3 两组跖骨基底部骨折患者的愈合情况比较
[1]
Shereff MJ. Fractures of the forefoot [J]. Instr Course Lect, 1990, 39: 133-140.
[2]
徐海林,徐人杰,王静,等.踝关节骨折的手术治疗[J].浙江临床医学, 2005, 7(10): 1082.
[3]
Devries JG,Taefi E,Bussewitz BW, et al. The fifth metatarsal base: anatomic evaluation regarding fracture mechanism and treatment algorithms [J]. J Foot Ankle Surg, 2015, 54(1): 94-98.
[4]
Fleischer AE,Stack R,Klein EE, et al. Forefoot adduction is a risk factor for jones fracture [J]. J Foot Ankle Surg, 2017, 56(5): 917-921.
[5]
Ekrol I,Court-Brown CM. Fractures of the base of the 5th metatarsal [J]. The Foot, 2004, 14(2): 96-98.
[6]
Lawrence SJ,Botte MJ. Jones' fractures and related fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal [J]. Foot Ankle, 1993, 14(6): 358-365.
[7]
Wang X,Zhang C,Wang C, et al. Accurate determination of screw position in treating fifth metatarsal base fractures to shorten radiation exposure time [J]. Singapore Med J, 2016, 57(11): 619-623.
[8]
Wang X,Deng Y,Yu L, et al. Comparison of hollow compression screws and absorbable screws for the treatment of the fifth metatarsal fracture:Ankle function and fracture displacement [J]. J Tissue Eng, 2015, 3(1): 53-54.
[9]
Niki H,Aoki H,Inokuchi S, et al. Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders I: development of standard rating system [J]. J Orthop Sci, 2005, 10(5): 457-465.
[10]
Polzer H,Polzer S,Mutschler W, et al. Acute fractures to the proximal fifth metatarsal bone: development of classification and treatment recommendations based on the current evidence [J]. Injury, 2012, 43(10): 1626-1632.
[11]
Gasse N,Luth T,Loisel F, et al. Fixation of split anterior tibialis tendon transfer by Anchorage to the base of the 5th metatarsal bone [J].Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2012, 98(7): 829-833.
[12]
Egol K,Walsh M,Rosenblatt K, et al. Avulsion fractures of the fifth metatarsal base: A prospective outcome study [J]. Foot Ankle Int, 2007, 28(5): 581-583.
[13]
Wu G B,Li B,Yang Y F. Comparative study of surgical and conservative treatments for fifth metatarsal base avulsion fractures (type I) in young adults or athletes[J]. J Orthop Surg(Hong Kong), 2017, 26(1): 2309499017747128.
[14]
Lutsky K F,Edelman D,Leinberry C, et al. A Prospective Evaluation of Complications after Use of Exposed Pins in the Hand and Wrist[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2019, 144(3): 659-664.
[15]
李辉,唐康来,周建波,等.带线锚钉缝合固定腓骨肌腱治疗第五跖骨基底部撕脱性骨折[J].中华创伤杂志, 2010, 26(12): 1090-1092.
[16]
Hong CC,Nag K,Yeow H, et al. Suture anchor fixation for fifth metatarsal tuberosity avulsion fractures: a case series and review of literature [J]. J Foot Ankle Surg, 2018, 57(5): 1030-1033.
[17]
时亮,段亮,董向辉.早期负重治疗第五跖骨基底部骨折[J].临床骨科杂志, 2019, 22(01): 50.
[1] 李焕玺, 何淳诺, 田志敏, 周胜虎, 吴昊越, 张浩强. 全膝关节置换术后股骨远端假体周围骨折治疗现状[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 630-637.
[2] 郭杰坤, 王楹, 杨轩, 晏欢欣, 钟豪. Ilizarov 骨搬移技术在急诊一期修复GustiloⅢB 型胫骨长段开放粉碎性骨折的临床效果[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(06): 507-510.
[3] 于同, 矫健航, 姜炜博, 王中汉, 王洋, 伍旭辉, 吴敏飞. 体位复位与椎板切除减压内固定术治疗胸腰段爆裂性骨折的对比性研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(06): 331-339.
[4] 黄韬, 杨晓华, 薛天森, 肖睿. 改良“蛋壳”技术治疗老年OVCF及对脊柱矢状面平衡参数、预后的影响[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(06): 340-348.
[5] 谭明明, 战世强, 侯宏涛, 曾翔硕. 经皮微创椎弓根螺钉内固定术对骨质疏松脊柱压缩性骨折患者临床研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(06): 349-354.
[6] 王贝贝, 崔振义, 王静, 王晗妍, 吕红芝, 李秀婷. 老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者术后贫血预测模型的构建与验证[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(06): 355-362.
[7] 张峻, 赵建民, 姚晓克, 吉浩宇, 越瑞祥. 增加CT对桡骨远端骨折分型的可靠性及可重复性评价[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 264-272.
[8] 房桂彬, 肖进, 傅光涛, 郑秋坚. 老年髋部骨折患者术后1年行走能力的影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 273-280.
[9] 张于, 程亮亮, 王峰, 赵德伟. 2枚与3枚空心钉治疗无移位股骨颈骨折的疗效对比[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 281-286.
[10] 茹江英, 廖启宇, 温国洪, 潘思华, 刘栋, 张皓琛, 牛云飞. 直接前方入路和后外侧入路半髋关节置换治疗老年痴呆股骨颈骨折的疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 287-293.
[11] 单良, 刘怡, 于涛, 徐丽. 老年股骨颈骨折术后患者心理弹性现状及影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 294-300.
[12] 周锐, 罗飞. 骨质疏松椎体骨折的分型进展[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(05): 315-320.
[13] 冯献礼, 高彤, 张喜善. 骨水泥注射量及弥散程度与PVP治疗OVCF的疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(04): 193-201.
[14] 李欣, 雷孝勇, 康大为. 手术与功能支具对闭合性移位肱骨干骨折患者功能结局的影响[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(04): 215-221.
[15] 喻蓉, 周伟力, 雷青, 陈松, 陈立, 刘峰, 丁州, 阳宏奇, 王康, 王大鹏. 改良的内外侧环抱锁定钢板在复杂胫骨平台骨折治疗中的临床疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 764-770.
阅读次数
全文


摘要