【摘要】：背景:骨盆、髖臼骨折常用的手術(shù)治療方式包括髂腹股溝入路及改良Stoppa入路,選擇何種入路更為安全有效仍存在爭(zhēng)議,需要循證醫(yī)學(xué)證據(jù)來(lái)評(píng)價(jià)不同入路方式的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn)。目的:比較改良Stoppa入路與髂腹股溝入路治療骨盆、髖臼骨折的臨床療效。方法:計(jì)算機(jī)檢索Cochrane library、Pub Med、Embase、OVID、中國(guó)期刊網(wǎng)全文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)(CNKI)、萬(wàn)方數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)、中國(guó)生物醫(yī)學(xué)文獻(xiàn)數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)(CBM)及維普中數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)(VIP)建庫(kù)至2016年10月間,有關(guān)改良Stoppa入路與髂腹股溝入路治療骨盆、髖臼骨折的隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn)。采用Rev Man 5.3軟件對(duì)納入文獻(xiàn)進(jìn)行合成分析。結(jié)果與結(jié)論:(1)最終納入了11篇隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn),總共722例患者;(2)最終Meta分析的結(jié)果示:改良Stoppa入路組手術(shù)時(shí)間、術(shù)中出血量、手術(shù)切口長(zhǎng)度、傷口引流量、住院時(shí)間均小于或少于髂腹股溝入路組(P0.05),且臨床療效顯著(P0.05);2組在術(shù)后并發(fā)癥、Matta評(píng)分方面差異無(wú)顯著統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);(3)由此可見(jiàn),改良Stoppa入路是治療骨盆、髖臼骨折更為安全有效的方法。
[Abstract]:Background: common surgical treatment for pelvic and acetabular fractures includes ilioinguinal approach and modified Stoppa approach. It is still controversial to choose which approach is more safe and effective. It is necessary to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches based on evidence-based medical evidence. Objective: to compare the clinical effect of modified Stoppa approach and ilioinguinal approach in the treatment of pelvic and acetabular fractures. Methods: Cochrane libraryPub Medbase OVID, CNKI, Wanfang database, CBM and VIP database were searched to treat pelvis with modified Stoppa approach and ilioinguinal approach between October 2016 and October 2016. A randomized controlled trial of acetabular fractures. The software Rev Man 5.3 was used to synthesize and analyze the literature. Results and conclusions: (1) A total of 722 patients were included in 11 randomized controlled trials. (2) the results of the final meta-analysis showed that the operative time, intraoperative bleeding, incision length, wound drainage, and wound drainage were measured in the modified Stoppa approach group. The hospitalization time was less than or less than that in the ilioinguinal approach group (P0.05), and the clinical effect was significant (P0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications and Matta score between the two groups (P0.05); (3). It can be seen that the modified Stoppa approach is the treatment of pelvis. A more safe and effective method for acetabular fracture.
【作者單位】： 重慶醫(yī)科大學(xué)附屬永川醫(yī)院骨科;
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：R687.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

中國(guó)期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù) 前10條

1 楊洪波;;經(jīng)新改良的髂腹股溝入路治療髖臼前壁和前柱骨折[J];中國(guó)實(shí)用醫(yī)藥;2012年36期

2 陳學(xué)袖;阮玉婷;李鑒軼;歐新發(fā);王靈曉;徐達(dá)傳;李澤宇;林荔軍;;關(guān)節(jié)外科人體解剖學(xué)系列講解(八) 髖臼骨折的髂腹股溝入路[J];中華關(guān)節(jié)外科雜志(電子版);2012年04期

3 白大峰;陳洪亮;霍明哲;許華亮;陳福壯;楊中鋒;鄭強(qiáng);;應(yīng)用兩窗髂腹股溝入路治療髖臼骨折的效果觀察[J];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥導(dǎo)報(bào);2013年14期

4 鄒宏;陳玉龍;弋石泉;唐付林;王輝;王家洪;;髂腹股溝入路在骨盆骨折中的應(yīng)用[J];四川醫(yī)學(xué);2007年05期

5 黃孫科;朱華;張榮潔;沈世軍;;經(jīng)改良髂腹股溝入路治療髖臼骨折的療效觀察[J];中國(guó)骨與關(guān)節(jié)損傷雜志;2013年S1期

6 李敬中;林曉崗;丁健;;髂腹股溝入路治療不穩(wěn)定性骨盆骨折(C型)的臨床應(yīng)用[J];西南國(guó)防醫(yī)藥;2014年03期

7 王永為;高亞賢;王小杰;房亮;馬泉;孔祥玉;;骨盆骨折髂腹股溝入路避免神經(jīng)血管損傷的臨床解剖學(xué)[J];中國(guó)臨床解剖學(xué)雜志;2014年02期

8 朱仕文,王滿(mǎn)宜,吳新寶,曹奇勇,吳宏華;經(jīng)單一髂腹股溝入路治療復(fù)合髖臼骨折[J];中華創(chuàng)傷骨科雜志;2005年11期

9 彭貴凌;朱艷平;朱仕文;;復(fù)合髖臼骨折患者經(jīng)單一髂腹股溝入路圍手術(shù)期的護(hù)理[J];山東醫(yī)藥;2010年44期

10 吳恙,童鑫,付馳,葉必謙,張春,朱銘興,馬華膺,馬安軍;髂腹股溝入路手術(shù)治療髖臼骨折[J];臨床骨科雜志;2002年02期

中國(guó)重要會(huì)議論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù) 前4條

1 李世和;;髂腹股溝入路及臨床應(yīng)用[A];玉溪市第三屆二次骨科學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)論文匯編[C];2009年

2 黨曉謙;柏傳毅;時(shí)志斌;王坤正;王春生;宋金輝;;髂腹股溝入路治療髖臼雙柱骨折[A];第十九屆全國(guó)中西醫(yī)結(jié)合骨傷科學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)論文匯編[C];2012年

3 包遠(yuǎn)祥;阮興隆;吳軍;武成興;;髂腹股溝入路手術(shù)治療髖臼骨折[A];2006年貴州省醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)骨科學(xué)分會(huì)學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文匯編[C];2006年

4 彭貴凌;朱艷平;朱仕文;;經(jīng)單一髂腹股溝入路治療46例復(fù)合髖臼骨折患者的護(hù)理[A];中華護(hù)理學(xué)會(huì)第11屆全國(guó)骨科護(hù)理學(xué)術(shù)交流暨專(zhuān)題講座會(huì)議論文匯編[C];2009年

中國(guó)碩士學(xué)位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù) 前2條

1 許永峰;應(yīng)用Stoppa入路與髂腹股溝入路在骨盆前環(huán)骨折治療中的比較性研究[D];大連醫(yī)科大學(xué);2011年

2 李坤;改良Stoppa入路和髂腹股溝入路治療髖臼骨折臨床療效的meta分析[D];大連醫(yī)科大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：2120811