摘要
目的对比T型钢板与锁定加压钢板治疗桡骨远端骨折患者的腕功能恢复情况,同时比较两种方法的治疗效果。方法选取2009年2月～2011年6月收治的96例单侧桡骨远端闭合骨折患者,采用普通T型钢板治疗44例,切开复位锁定加压钢板治疗52例,对两组患者的手术后骨折愈合时间、并发症发生率及腕关节功能情况指标进行综合评测。结果术后所有患者均获得随访结果,T型钢板组患者骨折愈合时间(3.7±1.2)个月,锁定加压接骨板组(2.5±1.1)个月,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后并发症发病率和腕功能综合评测优良率,普通T型钢板组为9.1%、81.8%,锁定加压接骨板组为3.8%、96.2%,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论掌侧入路普通T型钢板与锁定加压接骨板(LCP)在治疗桡骨远侧端骨折时均有一定的疗效,两者相比较,锁定加压接骨板(LCP)在治疗桡骨远侧端骨折时有一定优势。
Objective To evaluate the effects and clinical value of T plate versus locking compression plate（LCP） for distal radius factures.Methods The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed from 96 patients with distal radius fractures treated with nonoperation and operation from February 2009 to June 2011.Fourty four patients underwent external fixator with T plate,and fifty two patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation with locked compression plate.The healing time and the clinical assessment of wrist function were investigated.Results All patients were followed up for 5-15 months.There were significant differences（P 0.05） to achieve fracture healing between T plate group [（3.7±1.2） months] and LCP group [（2.5±1.1） months].On the rate of complications and the clinical assessment of wrist,T plate group was 9.1%,81.8% and LCP group was 3.8%,96.2%,there were significant differences（P 0.05） between two groups.Conclusion Using T plate and locked compression plate can achieve satisfactory functional outcomes,and locked compression plate has certain advantages.
出处
《中国当代医药》
2012年第4期47-48,共2页
China Modern Medicine
关键词
锁定加压钢板
T型钢板
桡骨远端骨折
疗效比较
Locked compression plate
T plate
Distal radius fracture
Efficacy comparison
