单一髂腹股沟入路与前后联合入路治疗髋臼双柱骨折的疗效比较

顾善虎; 陈加成; 荣旺; 殷照阳; 孙晓

doi:10.13201/j.issn.1009-5918.2023.06.003

单一髂腹股沟入路与前后联合入路治疗髋臼双柱骨折的疗效比较

- 徐州医科大学附属连云港医院(连云港市第一人民医院)急诊外科(江苏连云港，222000)
基金项目:
连云港市卫生健康委科研项目(No：ZD1901)

详细信息

通讯作者: 孙晓，E-mail：18961326690@163.com

中图分类号: R683.3

收稿日期: 2023-03-03

刊出日期: 2023-06-10

Ilioinguinal approach versus combined anterior and posterior approach in treatment of double-column acetabular fractures

- Department of Emergency Surgery, the Affiliated Lianyungang Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, the First People's Hospital of Lianyungang, Lianyungang, Jiangsu, 222000, China

More Information

Corresponding author: SUN Xiao, E-mail: 18961326690@163.com

Received Date: 03 March 2023

Publish Date: 10 June 2023

摘要

摘要: 目的比较髂腹股沟入路与前后联合入路治疗髋臼双柱骨折的临床疗效。方法选取我院2011年1月—2022年1月收治的髋臼双柱骨折患者65例，进行回顾性研究。65例均行手术治疗，根据手术入路不同，分为髂腹股沟入路组和前后联合入路组。其中髂腹股沟入路组32例，使用标准的髂腹股沟入路三窗显露复位骨折，前后联合入路组33例，前路使用髂腹股沟入路手术切口，后路使用Kocher-Langenbeck(K-L)入路。分析比较2组的患者的手术时间、出血量、术后并发症、复位质量以及髋关节功能评分。结果所有患者获得7个月~5年(平均22个月)随访，髂腹股沟入路组和前后联合入路手术时间分别为(186±17) min、(215±24) min，出血量分别为(798±232) mL、(1 010±288) mL，前者明显优于后者(P < 0.05)。髂腹股沟入路组和前后联合入路组术后1周Matta影像学评分优良率分别为87.5%(28/32)和90.9%(30/33)，末次随访髋关节功能评分优良可率分别为90.6%(29/32)和87.8%(29/33)，2组比较，差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。并发症：髂腹股沟入路组术后切口浅表感染2例、深静脉血栓1例、股外侧皮神经麻痹3例；前后联合入路组术后切口浅表感染3例、深静脉血栓4例、股外侧皮神经麻痹2例。2组并发症发生率比较，差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论对于髋臼双柱骨折，髂腹股沟入路和前后联合入路都可以获得满意疗效，但髂腹股沟入路可缩短手术时间，术中失血量少，术后并发症少，在治疗髋臼双柱骨折中有一定的优势。
- 髋臼 /
- 髂腹股沟入路 /
- Kocher-Langenbeck入路 /
- 骨折
Abstract: Objective To compare the differences of clinical efficacy between ilioinguinal approach and combined anterior and posterior approach in the treatment of double-column acetabular fractures.Methods A retrospective study was conducted on 65 cases of double-column acetabular fractures admitted to our hospital from January 2011 to January 2022. According to the different surgical approaches, the 65 cases were divided into ilioinguinal approach group and combined anterior and posterior approach group. There were 32 cases in the ilioinguinal approach group, and 33 cases in the combined anterior and posterior approach group. The ilioinguinal approach incision was used anteriorly, and the Kocher-Langenbeck(K-L) approach was used posteriorly. The operation time, blood loss, postoperative fracture complications, reduction quality and hip function score were compared between the two groups.Results All patients were followed up for 7 months to 5 years(average, 22 months). The group of ilioinguinal approach was significantly superior to combined anterior and posterior approach group in operation time([186±17] min vs. [215±24] min) and blood loss([798±232] mL vs. [1 010±288]mL), with statistically significant differences(P < 0.05). There were no statistical differences in reduction of fractures(the excellent and good rate of 90.6%[29/32] vs. 87.8%[29/33], P>0.05) and hip function score(Matta standard, the excellent and good rate of 87.5%[28/32] vs. 90.9%[30/33], P>0.05) at final follow-up. Complications included 2 cases of superficial incision infection, 1 case of deep vein thrombosis and 3 cases of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve palsy in ilioinguinal approach group, and 3 cases of superficial incision infection, 4 cases of deep vein thrombosis, 2 cases of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve palsy in the combined anterior and posterior approach group. The incidence of complications between two groups had statistically significant difference(P < 0.05).Conclusion Both the ilioinguinal approach and the combined anterior and posterior approach can achieve satisfactory results for double-column acetabular fractures. However, the ilioinguinal approach can shorten the operation time, reduce the intraoperative blood loss, and reduce postoperative complications, which has certain advantages in the treatment of double-column acetabular fractures.
- acetabular /
- ilioinguinal approach /
- Kocher-Langenbeck approach /
- fracture

HTML全文

图 1 髂腹股沟入路治疗髋臼双柱骨折

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 前后联合入路治疗髋臼双柱骨折

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 髂腹股沟入路与前后联合入路治疗治疗髋臼双柱骨折术中及随访结果比较 X±S，例

组别	例数	手术时间/min	出血量/mL	并发症			Matta影像学评分			髋关节功能评分
组别	例数	手术时间/min	出血量/mL	感染	深静脉血栓	神经麻痹	解剖复位	满意复位	不满意复位	优	良	可	差
髂腹股沟入路组	32	186±17	798±232	2	1	3	20	8	4	17	8	4	3
前后联合入路组	33	215±24	1 010±288	3	4	2	24	6	3	19	7	3	4
t/χ²		5.475	3.265	0.079			0.740			0.057
P		< 0.001	0.002	0.041			0.390			0.811

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(20)

[1]	Cimerman M, Kristan A, Jug M, et al. Fractures of the acetabulum: from yesterday to tomorrow[J]. Int Orthop, 2021, 45(4): 1057-1064. doi: 10.1007/s00264-020-04806-4
[2]	刘潇, 李明, 刘建恒, 等. 髋臼双柱骨折的治疗现状[J]. 中国骨与关节杂志, 2022, 11(2): 126-131. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-252X.2022.02.010
[3]	安雪军, 徐宝山, 王小健, 等. 前后联合入路翻修治疗复杂髋臼骨折的疗效分析[J]. 中华创伤杂志, 2019, 35(9): 823-828. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-8050.2019.09.010
[4]	侯志勇. 骨盆、髋臼骨折治疗的创新之路[J]. 中华创伤杂志, 2020, 36(11): 961-965. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501098-20200603-00406
[5]	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. http://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000039439875010_71fa.html
[6]	Moed BR, WillsonCarr SE, Watson JT. Results of operative treatment of fractures of the posterior wall of the acetabulum[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2002, 84(5): 752-758. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200205000-00008
[7]	Tazreean R, Nelson G, Twomey R. Early mobilization in enhanced recovery after surgerypathways: current evidence and recent advancements[J]. J Comp Eff Res, 2022, 11(2): 121-129. doi: 10.2217/cer-2021-0258
[8]	Routt ML Jr, Swiontkowski MF. Operative treatment of complex acetabular fractures. Combined anterior and posterior exposures during the same procedure[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1990, 72(6): 897-904. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199072060-00016
[9]	邓昶, 倪卫东, 郭书权, 等. 前后联合入路治疗陈旧性髋臼骨折的效果分析[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2018, 56(3): 196-200.
[10]	Yang Y, Zou C, Fang Y. Mapping of both column acetabular fractures with three-dimensional computed tomography and implications on surgical management[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2019, 20(1): 1-7. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-2378-y
[11]	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
[12]	王虎, 魏星, 付亚辉, 等. 髂腹股沟入路下拉力螺钉固定后壁在髋臼双柱骨折手术中的应用[J]. 中华骨科杂志, 2017, 37(13): 771-776.
[13]	吕刚, 孟庆才, 杜佳, 等. 单一髂腹股沟入路结合螺钉技术治疗复合髋臼骨折[J]. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2018, 20(9): 757-762. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-7600.2018.09.004
[14]	张元智, 刘刚, 张立峰, 等. 髋臼后柱顺行骨通道螺钉钉道的数字化分析与验证[J]. 中华创伤骨科杂志, 2018, 20(5): 389-393.
[15]	李洪涛, 刘军, 赵刚, 等. 单一髂腹股沟入路治疗髋臼双柱合并后壁骨折[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2022, 30(6): 559-562. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZJXS202206017.htm
[16]	Helfet DL, Schmeling GJ. Management of complex acetabular fractures through single nonextensile exposures[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1994(305): 58-68. http://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000039424788510_b422.html
[17]	Tian SY, Chen YJ, Yin YC, et al. Morphological characteristics of posterior wall fragments associated with acetabular both-column fracture[J]. Sci Rep, 2019, 9(1): 20164. http://www.socolar.com/Article/Index?aid=200244241425&jid=200000073720
[18]	田思宇, 王忠正, 赵阔, 等. 改良Stoppa入路与髂腹股沟入路钢板内固定治疗髋臼前柱/前壁骨折的疗效比较[J]. 中华创伤杂志, 2020, 36(11): 977-982.
[19]	古金山, 杨朝晖, 栗树伟. 单一前路与前后联合入路治疗髋臼双柱骨折的力学分布差异[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(33): 5254-5258. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XDKF202133005.htm
[20]	Wang H, Utku K, Zhuang Y, et al. Post wall fixation by lag screw only in associated both column fractures with posterior wall involvement[J]. Injury, 2017, 48(7): 1510-1517. http://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000039921405310_765c.html