[Case-control study on the treatment of XXXX of @entity135 with minimally invasive or traditional approach].

@entity1 @entity135 @entity190 @entity174
OBJECTIVE: To compare the differences of radiographical and functional outcomes between traditional and minimally invasive approach in treating @entity174 . METHODS: From February 2000 to February 2008, 37 @entity1 underwent reduction and internal fixation using two different approaches. In minimally invasive approach group, there were 16 males and 2 females, ranging in age from 20 to 47 years, averaged (35.2 +/- 3.1) years, and in traditional approach group, there were 15 males and 4 females, ranging in age from 22 to 44 years, averaged (35.3 +/- 2.3)years. All the @entity1 had @entity174 . The following data were compared between two groups: operation time, @entity190 , length of incision and function of ankle joint. All the @entity1 were graded by Hawkins points-scoring system after operation. RESULTS: All @entity1 were followed up. The duration ranged from 2 to 10 years, with an average of 5.6 years. The index such as operation time, @entity190 and the length of incision of @entity1 in minimally invasive approach group were significantly less than those of @entity1 in traditional approach group. According to AOFAS points-scoring system, the score of minimally invasive group was higher than that of traditional approach group. CONCLUSION: Compared with traditional approach, minimally invasive approach can protect blood supply better, get better clinical effects,which is worth of choosing to treat @entity174 of @entity135 .
