临床外科杂志 ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (3): 283-286.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-6483.2023.03.025

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

超声引导下与CT引导下肋骨骨折切开复位内固定术治疗肋骨骨折的效果比较

  

  1. 352100 福建宁德师范学院附属宁德市医院心胸外科
  • 收稿日期:2022-03-29 出版日期:2023-03-20 发布日期:2023-03-20
  • 通讯作者: 金忠文,Email:zhuotianyi@126.com

The comparison of effect of CT guided and ultrasound guided rib fracture incision and reduction of internal fixation

  1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery,Ningde Hospital affiliated to Ningde Normal University,Fujian,Ningde 352100,China
  • Received:2022-03-29 Online:2023-03-20 Published:2023-03-20

摘要: 目的 对比超声及CT引导下行肋骨骨折切开复位内固定术骨折断端定位准确度及手术效果。方法 2019年1月~2021年12月我院心胸外科收治的胸部创伤伴多发性肋骨骨折病人185例。按照不同的定位方式分为两组,对照组进行常规CT重建确定手术切口,观察组采用高频超声的方法确定手术切口,两组病人均进行常规切开复位内固定手术。对比两组病人的切口准确率、手术相关指标、VAS评分及总体治疗效果评分。结果 观察组切口准确率为93.06%,对照组为88.37%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组骨折断端暴露时间为(19.95±4.98)分钟,手术时间为(52.78±8.19)分钟,骨折愈合时间为(43.70±3.21)天,引流球放置时间为(3.89±1.38)天,对照组分别为(28.47±5.64)分钟、(65.61±10.72)分钟、(46.61±2.32)天和(5.17±2.01)天,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组病人术后3天VAS评分为(4.72±1.67)、GI评分为(1.78±0.34)、EI为(1.23±0.32),对照组分别为(6.72±2.01)分、(2.61±0.45)分和(2.03±0.25)分,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 对于肋骨骨折切开复位内固定术,超声引导下的定位效果优于CT。

关键词: 肋骨骨折切开复位内固定术, 三维CT重建, 高频超声定位, 切口准确率

Abstract: Objective To compare the accuracy and surgical effect of ultrasound and CT guided rib fracture incision and reduction of internal fixation. Methods A total of 185 patients with chest trauma with multiple rib fractures admitted to the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery Ningde Hospital affiliated to Ningde Normal University from January 2019 to December 2021 were collected.They were divided into control groups and observation groups according to different positioning methods.The control group performed routine CT reconstruction to determine the surgical incision.The observation group determined the surgical incision by high-frequency ultrasound.Patients in both groups underwent conventional incision reduction and internal fixation surgery.The incision accuracy,surgery-related indicators,VAS score and the overall treatment effect score were compared between the two groups.Results The Incision accuracy was 93.06% in the observation group and 88.37% in the control group,which was statistically significant(P<0.05).Observation group fracture exposure time(19.95±4.98)min,operation time(52.78±8.19)min,fracture healing time(43.70±3.21)d,drainage ball placement time(3.89±1.38)d,In the control group,the exposure time of fracture(28.47±5.64)min,operation time(65.61±10.72)min,fracture healing time(46.61±2.32)d and drainage ball placement time(5.17±2.01)d were statistically significant(P<0.05).VAS scores(4.72±1.67),GI scores(1.78±0.34),EI scores(1.23±0.32) in observation group 3 days after surgery,VAS scores(6.72±2.01),GI scores(2.61±0.45),EI scores(0.03±0.25) in control group 3 days after surgery,There was statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion As for rib fracture incision and reduction of internal fixation,Ultround-guided localization is better than CT and overall surgical treatment with ultrasound localization is better than CT.

Key words: rib fracture incision and reduction of internal fixation, three-dimensional CT reconstruction, high-frequency ultrasound localization, and incision accuracy

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!