跨伤椎固定和经伤椎固定在胸腰段脊柱骨折治疗中的临床效果分析(1)
[摘要] 目的 探究跨傷椎固定和经伤椎固定在胸腰段脊柱骨折治疗中的效果。 方法 于2018年8月—2019年5月方便选取该科62例胸腰段脊柱骨折患者为研究对象，按照患者选择的伤椎固定方式将研究对象分为两组，对比组31例，研究组31例，对比组进行跨伤椎固定，研究组进行经伤椎固定，分析两组的手术指标、随访伤椎压缩率与后凸Cobb角数据。 结果 研究组的术中出血量为(263.7±26.8)mL，对比组为(228.4±25.7)mL，差异有统计学意义(t=5.293，P<0.001);研究组的手术时间为(89.7±2.7)min，对比组为(73.4±3.5)min，差异有统计学意义(t=20.530，P<0.001);研究组术后引流量为(145.7±20.8)mL，对比组为(119.5±21.7)mL，差异有统计学意义(t=4.853，P<0.001);研究组VAS评分为(1.3±0.5)分，对比组为(1.7±0.6)分，差异有统计学意义(t=2.851，P=0.006);研究组伤椎压缩率为(3.4±1.2)%，对比组为(7.2±1.3)%，差异有统计学意义(t=11.958，P<0.001);研究组后凸Cobb角为(4.5±0.7)°，对比组为(7.0±0.9)°，差异有统计学意义(t=12.208，P<0.001)。 结论 在腰胸椎段脊柱骨折患者中，采用跨伤椎固定术中出血量，手术时间与术后引流量均明显优于径伤椎固定，但就伤椎压缩率与后凸Cobb角经伤椎固定具有一定的优势，从治疗最终结果来看经伤椎固定有更高的运用价值。
[关键词] 跨伤椎固定;经伤椎固定;腰胸椎段脊柱骨折;治疗效果
[中图分类号] R4 [文献标识码] A [文章编号] 1674-0742(2020)09(a)-0056-03
[Abstract] Objective To explore the effects of trans-injured vertebral fixation and trans-injured vertebral fixation in the treatment of thoracolumbar spinal fractures. Methods A total of 62 patients with thoracolumbar spine fractures in the department were selected as research subject from August 2018 to May 2019. The subjects were divided into two groups according to the method of fixation of the injured vertebrae selected by the patients. There were 31 cases in the control group， 31 cases in the study group， the control group was fixed across the injured vertebrae， and the study group was fixed through the injured vertebrae. The surgical indicators， follow-up injury vertebral compression rate and kyphotic Cobb angle data of the two groups were analyzed. Results The intraoperative blood loss of the study group was (263.7±26.8)mL， and the comparison group was (228.4±25.7)mL， the difference was statistically significant (t=5.293， P<0.001); the operation time of the study group was (89.7±2.7)min， the comparison group was (73.4±3.5)min， the difference was statistically significant (t=20.530， P<0.001); the postoperative drainage volume in the study group was (145.7±20.8)mL， and the comparison group was (119.5±21.7)mL， the difference was statistically significant (t=4.853， P<0.001); the VAS score of the study group was (1.3±0.5)points， and the comparison group was (1.7±0.6) points， the difference was statistically significant (t=2.851， P=0.006); the compression rate of the injured vertebra in the study group was (3.4±1.2)%， and the comparison group was (7.2±1.3)%， the difference was statistically significant (t=11.958， P<0.001); the kyphotic Cobb angle of the study group was (4.5±0.7)°， the comparison group was (7.0±0.9)°， the difference was statistically significant (t=12.208， P<0.001). Conclusion In patients with lumbar and thoracic spine fractures， the intraoperative blood loss， operation time and postoperative drainage volume of the lumbar-thoracic spine fracture are significantly better than those of the trans-injury vertebral fixation. Vertebral fixation has certain advantages. Judging from the final results of treatment， trans-injured vertebral fixation has higher application value., 百拇医药(刘怀鸿)
[关键词] 跨伤椎固定;经伤椎固定;腰胸椎段脊柱骨折;治疗效果
[中图分类号] R4 [文献标识码] A [文章编号] 1674-0742(2020)09(a)-0056-03
[Abstract] Objective To explore the effects of trans-injured vertebral fixation and trans-injured vertebral fixation in the treatment of thoracolumbar spinal fractures. Methods A total of 62 patients with thoracolumbar spine fractures in the department were selected as research subject from August 2018 to May 2019. The subjects were divided into two groups according to the method of fixation of the injured vertebrae selected by the patients. There were 31 cases in the control group， 31 cases in the study group， the control group was fixed across the injured vertebrae， and the study group was fixed through the injured vertebrae. The surgical indicators， follow-up injury vertebral compression rate and kyphotic Cobb angle data of the two groups were analyzed. Results The intraoperative blood loss of the study group was (263.7±26.8)mL， and the comparison group was (228.4±25.7)mL， the difference was statistically significant (t=5.293， P<0.001); the operation time of the study group was (89.7±2.7)min， the comparison group was (73.4±3.5)min， the difference was statistically significant (t=20.530， P<0.001); the postoperative drainage volume in the study group was (145.7±20.8)mL， and the comparison group was (119.5±21.7)mL， the difference was statistically significant (t=4.853， P<0.001); the VAS score of the study group was (1.3±0.5)points， and the comparison group was (1.7±0.6) points， the difference was statistically significant (t=2.851， P=0.006); the compression rate of the injured vertebra in the study group was (3.4±1.2)%， and the comparison group was (7.2±1.3)%， the difference was statistically significant (t=11.958， P<0.001); the kyphotic Cobb angle of the study group was (4.5±0.7)°， the comparison group was (7.0±0.9)°， the difference was statistically significant (t=12.208， P<0.001). Conclusion In patients with lumbar and thoracic spine fractures， the intraoperative blood loss， operation time and postoperative drainage volume of the lumbar-thoracic spine fracture are significantly better than those of the trans-injury vertebral fixation. Vertebral fixation has certain advantages. Judging from the final results of treatment， trans-injured vertebral fixation has higher application value., 百拇医药(刘怀鸿)