Abstract: 【Abstract】〓Objective〓To investigate the clinical effect of calcaneal locking plate internal fixation (CLPIF) on treatment of calcaneal fracture. Methods〓Eighty patients with calcaneal fracture from Feb 2010 to Feb 2013 were chosen and the clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. According to different treatment approaches, patients were divided into CLPIF group(n=40) and percutaneous poking reduction and internal fixation (PPRIF) group (n=40). Hospital stays, fracture healing time and postoperative joint function rehabilitation conditions were compared between two groups. Results〓By analysis of hospital records and follow-up visit records,average hospital stays of CLPIF group was 17.9±2.6 d and PPRIF group was 26.4±3.1 d;average fracture healing time of CLPIF group was 74.3±6.4 d and PPRIF group was 92.1±8.3 d;The post-operative Bohler angle in CLPIF group was 28.4±4.9 and 21.4±5.1 in PPRIF group; on recovery condition of calcaneal width, CLPIF group was 30.0±1.4 mm and PPRIF group 32.1±3.1 mm.The differences above between two groups had statistically significant. By HSS score investigation and comparison, excellent and good rate of postoperative function rehabilitation in CLPIF group was 95.0% and 89.8% in PPRIF group,but P>0.05. Conclusion〓CLPIF has characteristics of quickness, convenience and fast rehabilitation for treatment of calcaneal fracture. It has certain advantages in treating calcaneal fracture.

Key words: Calcaneal locking plate internal fixation, Percutaneous poking reduction and internal fixation, Calcaneal Fracture, Clinical effect

摘要： 【摘要】〓目的〓评价跟骨锁定钢板内固定治疗跟骨骨折的临床疗效。方法〓2010年2月至2013年2月就诊于我院的跟骨骨折患者80例,根据治疗方法不同分为跟骨锁定钢板内固定治疗组42例和经皮撬拨复位内固定治疗组38例,对比两组患者住院时间、骨折愈合时间和术后关节功能恢复等情况以评价两种治疗方法的临床疗效。结果〓跟骨锁定钢板内固定治疗组较经皮撬拨复位内固定治疗组平均住院时间明显缩短(分别为17.9±2.6 d、26.4±3.1 d);跟骨锁定钢板内固定治疗组平均骨折愈合时间也较经皮撬拨复位内固定治疗组缩短(分别为74.3±6.4 d、92.1±8.3 d);两组患者Bohler角恢复均有显著性差异,跟骨锁定钢板内固定治疗组Bohler角术后为28.4±4.9,经皮撬拨复位内固定治疗组术后为21.4±5.1;在跟骨宽度恢复情况方面,跟骨锁定钢板内固定治疗组较经皮撬拨复位内固定治疗组好,术后分别为30.0±1.4 mm和32.1±3.1 mm;以上差异均有统计学意义。根据HSS评分,跟骨锁定钢板内固定治疗组术后功能恢复优良率为95.0%,经皮撬拨复位内固定治疗组为89.47%,两组间差异无统计学意义。结论〓采用锁定钢板内固定治疗跟骨骨折比经皮撬拨复位内固定具有更短的住院和愈合时间,但总疗效相近。

关键词: 跟骨锁定钢板内固定, 经皮撬拨复位内固定, 跟骨骨折, 临床疗效性