Sun Da-Wei, Zhai Hui-Xia, Zhi Jun-Hua, Chen Ke-Qin, Pang Xiao, Xu Meng
Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shenzhen Pingle Orthopedic Hospital (Shenzhen Pingshan Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital), No. 15, Lanjin Fourth Road, Pingshan Street, Pingshan District, Shenzhen City, 518118, Guangdong Province, China.
Eur J Med Res. 2025 Jul 9;30(1):603. doi: 10.1186/s40001-025-02864-1.
Rib fractures are often treated conservatively, but for cases with significant displacement or instability, surgical intervention may be necessary. Traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been the standard surgical approach; however, the tunnel minimally invasive technique is emerging as a less invasive alternative. This study compares the efficacy of these two surgical methods in terms of incision length, postoperative pain, surgical time, and hospital stay.
A retrospective evaluation was conducted from June 2022 to December 2024 at our hospital, including 167 patients with rib fractures. Patients were divided into two groups: 86 receiving traditional ORIF (control group) and 81 undergoing the tunnel minimally invasive technique (observation group). Surgical outcomes, including incision length, surgical duration, pain scores (measured by the Visual Analogue Scale), and hospital stay, were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 27.0 software, and results were considered significant with a P-value of < 0.05.
The observation group demonstrated significantly shorter incision lengths (3.65 ± 1.08 cm vs. 9.10 ± 3.65 cm), lower postoperative pain scores (2.02 ± 0.93 vs. 3.52 ± 0.82), and shorter hospital stays (9.58 ± 2.68 days vs. 12.60 ± 3.33 days) compared to the control group (P < 0.001 for all). However, the surgical time was significantly longer for the tunnel technique (151.55 ± 39.81 min vs. 121.40 ± 29.37 min, P < 0.001).
The tunnel minimally invasive technique offers significant advantages over traditional ORIF, including smaller incisions, reduced postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stays, despite a longer surgical duration. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required to confirm its long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness.
肋骨骨折通常采用保守治疗，但对于移位明显或不稳定的病例，可能需要手术干预。传统的切开复位内固定术（ORIF）一直是标准的手术方法；然而，隧道微创技术正作为一种侵入性较小的替代方法出现。本研究比较了这两种手术方法在切口长度、术后疼痛、手术时间和住院时间方面的疗效。
2022年6月至2024年12月在我院进行了一项回顾性评估，纳入167例肋骨骨折患者。患者分为两组：86例接受传统ORIF（对照组），81例接受隧道微创技术（观察组）。比较手术结果，包括切口长度、手术时长、疼痛评分（采用视觉模拟评分法测量）和住院时间。使用SPSS 27.0软件进行统计分析，P值<0.05时结果被认为具有显著性。
与对照组相比，观察组的切口长度明显更短（3.65±1.08 cm对9.10±3.65 cm），术后疼痛评分更低（2.02±0.93对3.52±0.82），住院时间更短（9.58±2.68天对12.60±3.33天）（所有P值均<0.001）。然而，隧道技术的手术时间明显更长（151.55±39.81分钟对121.40±29.37分钟，P<0.001）。
尽管手术时间较长，但隧道微创技术相对于传统ORIF具有显著优势，包括切口更小、术后疼痛减轻和住院时间缩短。需要进一步开展更大样本量和更长随访期的研究，以证实其长期益处和成本效益。
