改良腹直肌旁入路与改良Stoppa入路治疗髋臼骨折临床疗效比较

doi:10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2023.5.18

中国临床解剖学杂志 ›› 2023, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (5): 603-607.doi: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2023.5.18

改良腹直肌旁入路与改良Stoppa入路治疗髋臼骨折临床疗效比较

杨华¹，向磊¹，蒋红兵¹，胡兵兵¹，曾参军²，张彬¹，刘伟¹*

1.南华大学衡阳医学院，附属南华医院，湖南衡阳 421002； 2.南方医科大学第三附属医院，广州 510630

收稿日期:2022-08-27 出版日期:2023-09-25 发布日期:2023-10-17
通讯作者: 刘伟，主任医师，E-mail：lwsurgery@163.com
作者简介:杨华（1995-），男，湖南长沙人，硕士，医师，研究方向：创伤骨科，E-mail：yanghuanhdx@163.com
基金资助:
湖南省自然科学基金面上项目（2022JJ30546）；湖南省科学技术厅临床医疗技术创新引导项目（2020SK51902）；南华大学2022年研究生科研创新项目（223YXC034）；南华大学医院管理研究与改革项目（2021YYGL09）；湖南省学位与研究生教育改革研究项目（2021JGYB148）

Comparison of clinical efficacy of modified Stoppa approach and modified pararecutus abdominis approach in the treatment of acetabulum fractures

Yang Hua¹, Xiang Lei¹, Jiang Hongbing¹, Hu Bingbing¹, Zeng Canjun², Zhang Bin¹, Liu Wei¹*

1. The Affilliated Nanhua Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang 421002, Hunan Province, China; 2. The Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510630, China

Received:2022-08-27 Online:2023-09-25 Published:2023-10-17

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的探讨改良腹直肌旁入路与改良Stoppa入路手术治疗髋臼骨折的临床疗效差异。方法回顾2020年1月至2022年1月我院完成的22例髋臼骨折手术，其中改良腹直肌旁入路13例（实验组），改良Stoppa入路9例（对照组），比较两组性别、年龄、受伤至手术时间、骨折分型、手术时间、术中出血量、术后Matta评分及髋关节功能评分。结果两组患者术前一般资料无统计学差异（P>0.05），具有可比性；骨折复位优良率及髋关节功能优良率无统计学差异（P>0.05）。实验组手术时间（124.54±52.21）min，术中出血量（318.46±65.68）mL，均优于对照组（175.00±59.28）min，（403.33±98.62）mL，P<0.05。结论相较于改良Stoppa入路，采用改良腹直肌旁入路手术治疗髋臼骨折可减少手术时间及出血量。

关键词: 髋臼, 　骨折, 　骨折内固定, 　改良腹直肌旁入路

Abstract: Objective To investigate the clinical effect of the modified Stoppa approach and modified pararecutus abdominis approach in the treatment of acetabular fractures. Methods A retrospective study was performed to analyze the clinical data of 22 operated patients with acetabular fractures in our hospital from January 2020 to January 2022. Among them, 13 cases were operated with the modified pararecutus abdominis approach (experimental group) and 9 cases were operated with the modified Stoppa surgical approach (control group). The gender, age, time from injury to operation, fracture typing, operation time, blood loss during operation, postoperative Matta score and hip function score were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results The general preoperative data of the two groups were not statistically significant (P>0.05) and were comparable. There was no significant difference in the rate of excellent quality of fracture reduction and the rate of excellent hip function between the two groups (P>0.05). In the control group, the operative time was (175.00±59.28) min, and the intraoperative blood loss was (403.33±98.62) ml. The operative time of the experimental group was (124.54±52.21) min and the intraoperative bleeding was (318.46±65.68) ml, both were better than those of the control group (P<0.05). Conclusions Compared with the modified Stoppa surgical approach, surgical treatment of acetabular fractures with the modified pararecutus abdominis approach reduces operative blood loss and operative time . It is a reliable treatment for pelvic acetabular fractures through the anterior approach.

Key words: Acetabulum; , , Fracture; , Fracture internal fixation; , Modified pararecutus abdominis approach

中图分类号:

R682.4

杨华, 向磊, 蒋红兵, 胡兵兵, 曾参军, 张彬, 刘伟. 改良腹直肌旁入路与改良Stoppa入路治疗髋臼骨折临床疗效比较[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2023, 41(5): 603-607.

Yang Hua, Xiang Lei, Jiang Hongbing, Hu Bingbing, Zeng Canjun, Zhang Bin, Liu Wei. Comparison of clinical efficacy of modified Stoppa approach and modified pararecutus abdominis approach in the treatment of acetabulum fractures[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy, 2023, 41(5): 603-607.

参考文献 20

[1]	Srivastava A, Rajnish RK, Kumar P, et al. Ilioinguinal versus modified Stoppa approach for open reduction and internal fixation of displaced acetabular fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 717 patients across ten studies[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2023, 143(2): 895-907. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-022-04369-6.
[2]	Cosgrove CT, Berkes MB, McAndrew CM, et al. Kocher-langenbeck approach for posterior wall acetabular fractures[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2020, 34 Suppl 2: S21-S22. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001816.
[3]	Tosounidis TH, Giannoudis VP, Kanakaris NK, et al. The ilioinguinal approach: state of the art[J]. JBJS Essent Surg Tech, 2018, 8(2): e19. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.16.00101.
[4]	张华明, 王福琴, 陈劲, 等. 腹直肌旁入路与改良Stoppa入路治疗髋臼骨折的疗效分析[J]. 广东医科大学学报, 2017, 35(5): 525-527. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-4057.2017.05.019.
[5]	Singh SV, Chopra RK, Puri G, et al. Clinico-radiological evaluation of modified stoppa approach in treatment of acetabulum fractures[J]. Cureus, 2020, 12(9): e10193. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.10193.
[6]	Kacra BK, Arazi M, Cicekcibasi AE, et al. Modified medial Stoppa approach for acetabular fractures: an anatomic study[J]. J Trauma, 2011, 71(5): 1340-1344. DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3182092e8b.
[7]	Matta JM. Operative treatment of acetabular fractures through the ilioinguinal approach: a 10-year perspective[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2006, 20(1 Suppl): S20-S29. DOI: 10.1097/,00003086-199408000-00003.
[8]	Soni A, Gupta R, Sen R. Modified stoppa approach for acetabulum fracture: a review[J]. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo), 2019, 54(2): 109-117. DOI: 10.1016/j.rboe.2017.09.006.
[9]	Hirvensalo E, Lindahl J, Bostman O. A new approach to the internal fixation of unstable pelvic fractures[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1993, (297): 28-32. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199312000-00007.
[10]	Archdeacon MT, Kazemi N, Guyp P, et al. The modified Stoppa approach for acetabular fracture[J]. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2011, 19(3): 170-175. DOI: 10.12671/jkfs.2014.27.4.274.
[11]	Keel MJB, Ecker TM, Cullmann JL, et al. The Pararectus approach for anterior intrapelvic management of acetabular fractures: an anatomical study and clinical evaluation[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2012, 94(3): 405-411. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B3.27801.
[12]	林羲疆, 李严兵, 黄华军, 等. 改良腹直肌旁切口入路前路钢板固定骶骨骨折的解剖学研究[J]. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2021, 23(11): 969-974. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20210111-00013.
[13]	黄复铭, 樊仕才, 黄海舟, 等. 基于髋臼骨折三柱分型的手术入路选择策略[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2021, 39(6): 750-754. DOI: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2021.06.024.
[14]	Pohlemann T, Herath SC, Braun BJ, et al. Anterior approaches to the acetabulum: which one to choose[J]?. EFORT Open Rev, 2020, 5(10): 707-712. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190061.
[15]	Elmadag M, Guzel Y, Aksoy Y, et al. Surgical treatment of displaced acetabular fractures using a modified stoppa approach[J]. Orthopedics, 2016, 39(2): e340-345. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20160222-07.
[16]	Bastian JD, Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, et al. Mid-term results in relation to age and analysis of predictive factors after fixation of acetabular fractures using the modified Stoppa approach[J]. Injury, 2013, 44(12): 1793-1798. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2013.08.009.
[17]	张潇, 熊然, 李涛, 等. 经腹直肌外侧切口入路治疗髋臼骨折的解剖学研究[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2015, 33(1): 17-20. DOI: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2015.01.005.
[18]	Bastian JD, Savic M, Cullmann JL, et al. Surgical exposures and options for instrumentation in acetabular fracture fixation: Pararectus approach versus the modified Stoppa[J]. Injury, 2016, 47(3): 695-701. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.01.025.
[19]	李绍良, 苏永刚, 王满宜. 单独应用改良Stoppa入路或结合髂窝入路治疗髋臼骨折的近期疗效分析[J]. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2022, 24(3): 219-224. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20211129-00541.
[20]	Sagi HC, Afsari A, Dziadosz D. The anterior intra-pelvic (modified rives-stoppa) approach for fixation of acetabular fractures[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2010, 24(5): 263-270. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181dd0b84.

改良腹直肌旁入路与改良Stoppa入路治疗髋臼骨折临床疗效比较

Comparison of clinical efficacy of modified Stoppa approach and modified pararecutus abdominis approach in the treatment of acetabulum fractures

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献 20

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	叶书熙, 杨晓东, 李涛, 麦奇光, 王华, 樊仕才. 前方腹直肌外侧入路在儿童髋臼骨折治疗中的应用及临床疗效分析[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2023, 41(6): 728-732.
[2]	黄海, 欧阳钧. 内固定治疗成人股骨颈骨折的研究进展[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2023, 41(6): 751-753.
[3]	李佳伟, 高明杰, 仝玲, 刘清华, 康志杰, 张凯, 王海燕, 李筱贺. 内蒙古地区蒙古族人群髋臼数字解剖学研究[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2023, 41(4): 390-394.
[4]	常树森, 何春念, 陈伟, 周健, 张芳, 聂开瑜, 邓呈亮, 魏在荣. 旋股外侧动脉降支Flow-through皮瓣联合MIPPO于急诊胫腓骨Gustilo IIIC型骨折中的应用研究[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2022, 40(6): 733-737.
[5]	彭昌贵, 罗鹰, 蓝国湖, 李日旺, 袁志坤, 包国庆, 李旭明, 潘剑英. 股骨干骨折三维闭合复位器的研制与临床应用[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2022, 40(5): 605-609.
[6]	黄复铭, 樊仕才, 黄海舟, 周继辉, 林世磅. 基于髋臼骨折三柱分型的手术入路选择策略[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2021, 39(6): 750-754.
[7]	吴铭杰, 庄伟达, 郑杰, 李修往, 陈敏, 樊晓海, 吴家昌, 桑宏勋. 计算机导航系统辅助置入空心螺钉内固定术治疗股骨颈骨折[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2021, 39(4): 454-459.
[8]	范辉, 陈代全, 张勤, 吴启龙, 施建兴, 高飞, 包其能, 伍维昌. 骨水泥封闭经皮克氏针外固定支架治疗第5掌骨颈骨折疗效[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2021, 39(1): 105-107.
[9]	赵虹瑾, 刘洋, 李静, 张磊. 冈盂切迹的解剖形态学测量及临床意义[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2019, 37(3): 245-248.
[10]	吴耿,张振伟,张美超,李征. 钢板骨折区增加螺钉帽对胫骨骨折内固定影响的有限元分析[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2019, 37(2): 185-189.
[11]	钟名金,丘志河,梁达强,柳海峰,李阔阔,欧阳侃,朱伟民,陆伟,王大平. 人体髋臼盂唇的形态结构特点及其临床意义[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2018, 36(5): 486-491.
[12]	郭晓光,关钛元,张磊,扶世杰,周鑫,刘刚,陈跃. 少阳生骨方对SD大鼠胫骨骨折断端18F-NaF分布的影响[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2018, 36(5): 545-550.
[13]	李杰,李飞龙,冯文俊,曾建春,陈锦伦,曾意荣. 髋关节镜治疗股骨髋臼撞击综合征中短期疗效观察[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2018, 36(5): 578-581.
[14]	吴浩俊，　何艳霞，　陈航，　刘衍志，　郑越瑜，　陈光华. 髋臼后壁软骨面平行角重建螺钉置入安全性的CT扫描图像分析[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2018, 36(4): 440-444.
[15]	谭山,高仕长,张安维,陈剑飞. 髋臼上区域置钉安全范围的影像学研究[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2018, 36(3): 259-263.