Objective: To compare the advantages and disadvantages of interlockingintramedullary nail and minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis in thetreatment of tibia fracture,in order to provide a reference for clinical treatment..Methods: Fifty cases of tibia fracture, treated from July2009to July2011,wererandomly divided into two groups,one group were treated with interlocking intramedullarynail, and another were treated with minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis.The operation time, blood loss cases, the number of perspective, postoperativecomplications, hospitalization days, fracture healing time and clinical effect in near periodof time were observered. Finally to assess the affected limb by using the efficacyevaluation criteria of tibial fractures (Johner&Wruh,1983),in order to study the efficacyof interlocking intramedullary nail and minimally invasive percutaneous plateosteosynthesis in the treatment of tibia fracture.Results: There were significant difference between two groups in operation time andthe number of perspective(P<0.05), the group treated with minimally invasivepercutaneous plate osteosynthesis has a shorter operation time and a less number ofperspective. In the aspects of hospitalization time, blood loss cases, postoperativecomplications,fracture clinical healing time and clinical effect in near period of time, thetwo groups had no significant difference(P>0.05).Conclusion: The two methods were both excellent internal fixations for the treatmentof tibia fractures.Comparing the results between minimally invasive percutaneous plateosteosynthesis and interlocking intramedullary nail for treatment of tibia fractures, theformer’s operation time was shorter and the number of perspective was less. It was simple and economic;but there were no significant difference between the two methords in theaspects of hospitalization time, blood loss cases,postoperative complications,fractureclinical healing time and clinical effect in near period of time was insignificant. |