摘要
背景:锁骨解剖钢板与重建固定带哪种内固定材料更加适合锁骨中段骨折呢?目的:比较锁骨解剖钢板与重建固定带微创治疗锁骨中段骨折的疗效。方法:回顾性分析运用锁骨解剖钢板和通用重建带经皮微创治疗锁骨中段骨折各28例患者的临床资料,评价两种方法的内固定时间、内固定后患者骨折愈合情况、功能恢复情况、并发症情况。结果与结论:解剖钢板组骨重建时间较重建带组明显缩短(P<0.05)。56例患者骨折全部愈合,未出现骨不连和感染等不良并发症,两组各有2例出现螺钉松动,患者Neer评分,目测类比疼痛评分差异均无显著性意义。说明锁骨解剖钢板与重建固定带微创治疗锁骨中段骨折疗效相仿,但前者可以减少术中折弯的过程,操作简单,而后者对于长斜型,不规则型锁骨骨折的治疗有其独特的优势。
BACKGROUND：Which clavicle anatomical plate or reconstruction plate is more suitable for midshaft clavicle fracture is a problem.OBJECTIVE：To compare the effect of clavicle anatomical plates and reconstruction plates in treating midshaft clavicle fracture by.MIPO technique.METHODS：Fifty-six patients with midshaft clavicle fracture treated with clavicle anatomical plates or universal reconstruction ribbon plates were retrospectively reviewed.We planned to investigate the operation time,fracture healing,functions and complications.RESULTS AND CONCLUSION：Totally 56 patients had bone healing.Operation time of the anatomical plates group was shorter than that of the reconstruction ribbon plates group.All patients had no complications,such as nonunion and infection.There were two cases of screw loosing separately in the two groups.There was no statistic difference in Neer scores and visual analog scale scores.Closed reduction and internal fixation with clavicle anatomical plates and universal reconstruction ribbon plates have the similar outcome.The easy operation is the advantage of the former,and the latter can be used in irregular or oblique fractures.
出处
《中国组织工程研究与临床康复》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2011年第48期9108-9111,共4页
Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research
基金
"上海市浦东新区卫生系统重点学科建设"资助项目(PWZxk2010-08)~~
