Bone L B, Sucato D, Stegemann P M, Rohrbacher B J
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Erie County Medical Center, Buffalo, New York 14215, USA.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Sep;79(9):1336-41. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199709000-00007.
A study of ninety-nine patients who had a unilateral, displaced, isolated closed fracture of the tibial shaft was performed to determine the effect of the type of treatment on the clinical outcome. Forty-seven patients were managed with closed intramedullary nailing with reaming, and fifty-two were managed with closed reduction and a cast. The two groups were comparable with regard to the ages of the patients, the locations and amounts of displacement of the fractures, and the number of patients who had a history of smoking. The time to union was shorter in the patients who had been managed with intramedullary nailing than in those who had been managed with a cast (mean, eighteen compared with twenty-six weeks; p = 0.02). A non-union occurred in one patient (2 per cent) who had been managed with nailing and in five patients (10 per cent) who had been managed with a cast. There were no infections in either group. Removal of the nail was performed electively in twenty-six patients. Twenty-five patients who had been managed with nailing and twenty-five who had been managed with a cast were followed for a mean of 4.4 years. With use of the Iowa Knee Evaluation and the Ankle-Evaluation Rating System, the patients who had had nailing had mean scores of 96 points (range, 68 to 100 points) and 97 points (range, 74 to 100 points) for the knee and the ankle, respectively, compared with 89 points (range, 62 to 100 points) and 84 points (range, 62 to 100 points) for those who had been managed with a cast (p < 0.05). Administration of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey to the twenty-five matched pairs of patients yielded scores that were significantly better after nailing than after treatment with a cast (a mean of 85 points [range, 27 to 99 points] compared with a mean of 74 points [range, 20 to 97 points]; p < 0.05). We concluded that the treatment of displaced closed fractures of the tibial shaft with closed intramedullary nailing with reaming provides functional results that are superior to those obtained with use of a cast.
对99例单侧、移位、孤立的胫骨干闭合性骨折患者进行了一项研究,以确定治疗方式对临床结果的影响。47例患者采用闭合髓内钉扩髓治疗,52例患者采用闭合复位石膏固定治疗。两组患者在年龄、骨折移位的位置和程度以及有吸烟史的患者数量方面具有可比性。髓内钉固定治疗的患者骨折愈合时间比石膏固定治疗的患者短(平均分别为18周和26周;p = 0.02)。1例(2%)接受髓内钉固定治疗的患者和5例(10%)接受石膏固定治疗的患者出现了骨不连。两组均无感染发生。26例患者择期取出髓内钉。25例接受髓内钉固定治疗的患者和25例接受石膏固定治疗的患者平均随访4.4年。使用爱荷华膝关节评估和踝关节评估评分系统,髓内钉固定治疗的患者膝关节和踝关节的平均评分分别为96分(范围68至100分)和97分(范围74至100分),而石膏固定治疗的患者膝关节和踝关节的平均评分分别为89分(范围62至100分)和84分(范围62至100分)(p < 0.05)。对25对匹配患者进行医学结果研究简表36健康调查,结果显示髓内钉固定治疗后的得分明显高于石膏固定治疗后(平均85分[范围27至99分],而石膏固定治疗后平均74分[范围20至97分];p < 0.05)。我们得出结论,闭合髓内钉扩髓治疗胫骨干移位闭合性骨折的功能结果优于石膏固定治疗。