抗生素骨水泥联合负压辅助创面闭合治疗胫腓骨Gustilo-Ⅲ型骨折
DOI:
作者:
作者单位:

山东大学第二医院

作者简介:

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

基金项目:


Antibiotic-loaded bone cement combined with vacuum-assisted closure in the treatment of tibiofibular fracture of Gustilo type Ⅲ
Author:
Affiliation:

The Second Hospital,Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    摘要 [目的] 评价抗生素骨水泥联合负压辅助创面闭合(vacuum-assisted closure,VAC)治疗胫腓骨Gustilo-Ⅲ型骨折的临床效果。 [方法] 回顾性分析2020年3月~2021年9月本院收治的胫腓骨Gustilo-Ⅲ型骨折患者60例。依据术前医患沟通结果,31例采用抗生素骨水泥联合VAC治疗(联合组),29例采用单一VAC治疗(VAC组)。比较两组围手术期、检验结果与随访情况。 [结果] 两组均顺利完成二期手术,术中无严重并发症。两组患者的一期手术时间和VAS评分无明显差异(P>0.05)。联合组的二期术前时间、渗出评级、肉芽评级、细菌培养转阴率、创面闭合方式、创面愈合时间、住院时间和治疗费用等均显著优于VAC组(P<0.05)。实验室检查方面,随时间推移,两组患者的WBC、NEU、CRP和ESR均显著下降(P<0.05)。二期术前联合组的上述指标均显著优于VAC组(P<0.05)。联合组的骨折愈合时间和骨折愈合情况显著优于VAC组(P<0.05)。随时间推移,两组患者的局部瘢痕情况和患肢功能均显著改善(P<0.05)。术后3月联合组的局部疤痕情况和患肢功能显著优于VAC组(P<0.05),术后6个月和12个月两组间局部疤痕情况和患肢功能的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。联合组的患者满意度明显高于VAC组(P<0.05)。[结论] 与单一采用VAC治疗相比,抗生素骨水泥联合负压辅助创面闭合具有缩短治疗周期,降低感染风险和促进骨折愈合等优点。

    Abstract:

    Abstract: [Objective] To evaluate the clinical efficacy of antibiotic-loaded bone cement combined with vacuum-assisted closure for tibiofibular fracture of Gustilo type Ⅲ. [Methods] A retrospective study was performed on 60 patients who received surgical treatment of tibiofibular fracture of Gustilo type Ⅲ in our hospital from March 2020 to September 2021. According to the consequence of preoperative doctor-patient communication, 31 patients were treated with Antibiotic-loaded bone cement combined with VAC (the united group), while the remaining 29 patients were treated with single VAC (the VAC group). The documents regarding to perioperative period, laboratory tests and follow-up were compared between the two groups. [Results] All patients in both groups had the two-stage operations performed successfully without serious complications. There were no significant differences in the primary operation time and VAS scores between the two groups (P>0.05). The time before surgery, exudation rating, granulation rating, bacterial culture negative conversion rate, wound closure mode, wound healing time, hospital stay and treatment cost of the united group were significantly better than those of the VAC group (P<0.05).With respect of laboratory tests, the WBC, NEU, CRP, and ESR decreased significantly over time in both groups (P<0.05), which in the united group were significantly better than those in VAC group before the second stage operation (P<0.05). Fracture healing time and fracture healing in the united group were significantly better than those in the VAC group (P<0.05). Local scarring and limb function improved significantly over time in both groups (P<0.05). The local scarring and limb function in the united group were significantly better than those in the VAC group at 3 months after surgery (P<0.05), there were no significant differences in local scarring and function of affected limb between the two groups at 6 and 12 months after surgery (P>0.05). Patient satisfaction in the united group was significantly higher than that in the VAC group (P<0.05). [Conclusion] Compared with VAC treatment alone, Antibiotic-loaded bone cement combined with vacuum-assisted closure has the advantages of shortening the treatment period, reducing the risk of infection and promoting fracture healing.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:2023-04-14
  • 最后修改日期:2023-04-14
  • 录用日期:2023-05-22
  • 在线发布日期:
  • 出版日期: