|
|
|
Abstract Objective To compare the axial deviation between hybrid and circular frame for tibial bone defect.Methods From May 2013 to August 2019，forty-eight cases of tibial bone defect were treated by bone transport in our hospital.Among them，25 cases were fixed with hybrid frames(hybrid group)，and 23 cases were fixed with circular frames(circular group).In the hybrid group，there were 18 males and 7 females，with an average age of (48.64±10.55)years (range，28~73 years)，and an average course of disease of (19.44±16.41)months and length of bone defect of (7.48±2.39)cm.In the circular group，there were 18 males and 5 females，with an average age of (47.22±9.24)years (range，25~66 years)，and an average course of disease of (18.52±10.04)months and length of bone defect of (7.78±2.31)cm.The axial angulation and incidence of axial deviation were compared between the two groups after operation and at the time of bone stumps were close to contact，and the external fixation index，bone healing time，incidence of pin loosening，bony results，and functional results were compared.Results All the patients were followed up for 16~32 months，with an average of (23.21±4.43)months.After operation，there was no axial deviation in both groups，and the axial angulation had no significant difference between the two groups(P＞0.05).At the time of bone stumps were close to contact，the incidence of axial deviation and axial angulation in the hybrid group were lower than those of the circular group (P＜0.05).The incidence of pin loosening in the circular group was higher than that of the hybrid group(P＜0.05).There were no significant difference in the external fixation index，bone healing time，bony results，functional results，and rate of pin tract infection between the two groups(P＞0.05).Conclusion Compared with the circular frame，the hybrid frame can better prevent the occurrence of axial deviation in the process of tibial bone transport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
［1］李朋，刘栋，王兆林，等.骨膜缺如对Ilizarov技术治疗下肢节段性骨缺损的影响［J］.中华骨科杂志，2019，39(1)：36-44.
［2］王长林，魏星，孙有荣，等.骨搬移技术治疗股骨大段感染性骨缺损的回顾性分析［J］.实用骨科杂志，2019，25(11)：1030-1034.
［3］徐建强，周密，刘琳琳，等.显微外科技术结合骨搬移术治疗小腿创伤后骨髓炎［J］.中华创伤骨科杂志，2018，20(8)：675-678.
［4］王景双，胡思斌，马杰，等.Ilizarov技术改善骨搬运中轴向偏移的临床研究［J］.中国修复重建外科杂志，2016，30(5)：546-550.
［5］Yilihamu Y，Keremu A，Abulaiti A，et al.Outcomes of post-traumatic tibial osteomyelitis treated with an orthofix LRS versus an Ilizarov external fixator［J］.Injury，2017，48(7)：1636-1643.
［6］Bhardwaj R，Singh J，Kapila R.Comparision of Ilizarov ring fixator and rail fixator in infected nonunion of long bones：A retrospective followup study［J］.Indian J Orthop，2019，53(1)：82-88.
［7］石博文，张克刚，陈旭，等.Ilizarov支架和单边支架治疗胫骨阶段性骨缺损伴软组织缺损的疗效比较［J］中华创伤杂志，2020，36(2)：163-171.
［8］PaleyD.Problems，obstacles，and complications of limb lengtheningby the Ilizarov technique［J］.Clin Orthop Relat Res，1990(250)：81-104.
［9］Paley D，Catagni MA，Argnani，et al.Ilizarov treatment of tibial nonunions with bone loss［J］.Clin Orthop Relat Res，1989(241)：146-165.
［10］滕星，黄雷，杨胜松.等.应用混合式外固定支架骨搬运技术治疗胫骨干骺端骨缺损［J］.中华创伤骨科杂志，2013，15(10)：834-839.
［11］郭志民，上官天丞，张萌，等.骨搬移治疗胫骨骨缺损相关并发症的防治［J］.中国骨伤，2016，29(8)：756-760.
［12］于凌佳，陈开放，黄振飞，等.富血小板血浆联合骨搬移技术治疗胫骨骨缺损的前瞻性随机对照研究［J］.中华骨科杂志，2017，37(5)：291-297.
［13］胡居正，石展英，杨成志，等.骨搬移后对合端植骨内固定治疗下肢大段骨缺损的临床研究［J］.中华骨科杂志，2018，38(5)：280-287.
［14］叶松林，覃晓峰，李成东，等.骨搬移术治疗胫骨感染性骨不连的疗效［J］.实用骨科杂志，2017，23(4)：369-371. |
|
|
���������� 14010702070875��