S形和解剖型锁定钢板治疗锁骨粉碎性骨折的疗效比较
|
摘要
目的比较解剖型和S型锁定钢板治疗锁骨粉碎性骨折的疗效。方法 68例锁骨粉碎性骨折患者,按随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组,每组34例。对照组采用解剖型锁定钢板固定治疗,观察组采用S形锁定钢板固定治疗,对两组的临床疗效进行比较。结果观察组患者手术时间、住院时间、术后骨折愈合时间及出血量分别为(96.2±5.3)min、(15.6±3.2)d、(17.2±2.5)周、(185.2±20.6)mL,均少于对照组的相应指标(131.2±10.5)min、(29.5±5.4) d、(24.6±5.1)周、(297.6±25.3) mL(均P<0.01)。观察组的临床疗效优于对照组(P<0.01),并发症发生率为5.9%,低于对照组的29.4%(P<0.05)。结论与解剖型锁定钢板比较,S形锁定钢板固定治疗锁骨粉碎性骨折具有手术创伤小、术后恢复快、并发症轻的优点。
Objective To compare the efficacy of S-shaped and anatomical locking plate in the treatment of clavicular comminuted fractures. Methods 68 patients with clavicular comminuted fractures were divided into the Control Group and Observation Group according to the random number table, 34 cases in each group. The Control Group was treated with anatomic locking plate while the Observation Group was treated with S-shaped locking plate. The clinical efficacy was compared between the two groups. Results The operation time, hospitalization time, postoperative healing time and bleeding volume in the Observation Group were(96.2±5.3) min,(15.6±3.2) d,(17.2±2.5) weeks and(185.2±20.6) mL while those in the control group were(131.2±10.5) min,(29.5±5.4) d,(24.6±5.1) weeks and(297.6±25.3) mL, and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.01). The clinical efficacy of the Observation Group was superior to the Control Group(P<0.01), and the incidence of complications in the Observation Group was significantly lower than that in the Control Group(5.9% vs 29.4%, P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with anatomical locking plate, S-shaped locking plate fixation has the advantages of less injury, faster recovery and less complications in the treatment of clavicular comminuted fractures.
Objective To compare the efficacy of S-shaped and anatomical locking plate in the treatment of clavicular comminuted fractures. Methods 68 patients with clavicular comminuted fractures were divided into the Control Group and Observation Group according to the random number table, 34 cases in each group. The Control Group was treated with anatomic locking plate while the Observation Group was treated with S-shaped locking plate. The clinical efficacy was compared between the two groups. Results The operation time, hospitalization time, postoperative healing time and bleeding volume in the Observation Group were(96.2±5.3) min,(15.6±3.2) d,(17.2±2.5) weeks and(185.2±20.6) mL while those in the control group were(131.2±10.5) min,(29.5±5.4) d,(24.6±5.1) weeks and(297.6±25.3) mL, and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.01). The clinical efficacy of the Observation Group was superior to the Control Group(P<0.01), and the incidence of complications in the Observation Group was significantly lower than that in the Control Group(5.9% vs 29.4%, P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with anatomical locking plate, S-shaped locking plate fixation has the advantages of less injury, faster recovery and less complications in the treatment of clavicular comminuted fractures.
引文
[1]许累欣,张欣,章云童,等.锁定钢板结合镍钛形态记忆合金弓齿钉治疗锁骨粉碎性骨折[J].实用骨科杂志, 2014,20(4):343-345.
[2]王云才.解剖锁定型钢板治疗锁骨粉碎性骨折的疗效分析[J].中国临床医学, 2013, 20(2):208-209.
[3]管国义,陈家麟,许戈辉,等.锁定钢板结合自体骨治疗锁骨中段粉碎性骨折的疗效评价[J].河北医学, 2016, 22(5):716-718.
[4]童文卿,董有海.解剖型多轴锁定钢板螺钉系统治疗锁骨中段粉碎性骨折[J].中医正骨, 2013, 25(10):54-56.
[5]王宏瑞,丁坚,陈道运,等. ITS万向锁定钢板治疗锁骨中段粉碎性骨折的临床疗效分析[J].第二军医大学学报, 2014,35(9):1012-1015.
[6]张斌,杨晓斐,吴红富,等.普通重建钢板与解剖锁定钢板固定治疗老年锁骨中段粉碎性骨折的近期疗效比较[J].中华创伤骨科杂志, 2017, 19(12):1081-1084.
[7]王荣生,石裕明,许育东,等.逆行髓内钉与锁定加压钢板内固定治疗股骨髁上骨折的疗效比较[J].广东医科大学学报, 2017, 35(4):373-375.
[2]王云才.解剖锁定型钢板治疗锁骨粉碎性骨折的疗效分析[J].中国临床医学, 2013, 20(2):208-209.
[3]管国义,陈家麟,许戈辉,等.锁定钢板结合自体骨治疗锁骨中段粉碎性骨折的疗效评价[J].河北医学, 2016, 22(5):716-718.
[4]童文卿,董有海.解剖型多轴锁定钢板螺钉系统治疗锁骨中段粉碎性骨折[J].中医正骨, 2013, 25(10):54-56.
[5]王宏瑞,丁坚,陈道运,等. ITS万向锁定钢板治疗锁骨中段粉碎性骨折的临床疗效分析[J].第二军医大学学报, 2014,35(9):1012-1015.
[6]张斌,杨晓斐,吴红富,等.普通重建钢板与解剖锁定钢板固定治疗老年锁骨中段粉碎性骨折的近期疗效比较[J].中华创伤骨科杂志, 2017, 19(12):1081-1084.
[7]王荣生,石裕明,许育东,等.逆行髓内钉与锁定加压钢板内固定治疗股骨髁上骨折的疗效比较[J].广东医科大学学报, 2017, 35(4):373-375.