【摘要】 目的分析三种胫骨骨折不同固定器械的生物力学效果,以指导临床应用。方法14具新鲜胫骨标本,制成斜形骨折模型,先分成单侧外固定支架(UADF)组和有限接触加压接骨板(LC-DCP)组,每组7具标本。UADF组测试完毕后,标本斜行骨折处加用1枚螺钉固定,制成UADF加有限内固定组。各组标本进行压缩、弯曲及旋转性能测试。结果在抗压缩性能和抗弯曲性能方面,UADF固定较UADF加有限内固定和LC-DCP固定弱,差异有极显著性意义(P＜0．01)。在抗旋转性能方面,UADF固定也较UADF加有限内固定和LC-DCP固定差,差异有显著性意义(P＜0．05)；而UADF加有限内固定和LC-DCP固定之间差异无显著性意义(P＞0．05)。结论UADF固定后抗压缩和抗弯曲能力较LC-DCP固定差,但应力遮挡较小,加用有限内固定后抗变形能力接近LC-DCP固定,值得推荐。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To compare the biomechanical performance of three different fixation instruments for tibial fractures.Methods Fourteen fresh tibial specimens were made into models of oblique fracture.Seven models were fixed with unilateral axial dynamic fixation(UADF),and seven with limited contact dynamic compression plate(LC-DCP).After biomechanical tests had been done for the UADF group,an extra screw was used at the oblique fracture site to reinforce the fixation with extra limited internal fixation.Each model was tested for its hiomechanical performance in resisting compression,bending and rotation.Results The performance of UADF was significantly poorer than that of LC-DCP and UADF with limited internal fixation in anti-compression,an- ti-bending and anti-rotation(P＜0.05).There was no significant difference in the rigidity between LC-DCP and UADF with limited internal fixation(P＞0.05).Conclusion UADF with extra limited internal fixation is a recommendable method for tihial fractures because it cart provide the same effective fixation as LC-DCP does.更多还原