| 颜廷鑫 黄正湘 何继业 张家红 王栋梁.锁定钢板与空心螺钉治疗肱骨大结节骨折的疗效比较[J].,2015,15(14):2670-2673 |
| 锁定钢板与空心螺钉治疗肱骨大结节骨折的疗效比较 |
| Comparison of Curative Effect between Locking Plate and Cannulated Screwfor the Treatment of Humeral Greater Tuberosity Fracture |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 肱骨近端骨折 大结节 锁定钢板 空心螺钉 |
| 英文关键词: Proximal humeral fracture Greater tuberosity Locking plate Cannulated screw |
| 基金项目:上海市科学技术委员会项目（13DZ1940704） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 891 |
| 全文下载次数: 0 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的：比较锁定钢板与空心螺钉治疗肱骨大结节骨折的临床疗效及安全性。方法：对2010 年1 月至2013 年1 月手术治疗
的81 例单纯肱骨大结节骨折患者进行回顾性分析，患者均行切开复位内固定，固定方式分别采用锁定钢板与空心螺钉。围手术
期观察指标为：手术时间、术中出血量、住院天数等。术后按时间节点随访，至少为术后1 年，最终随访时给予X 线摄片以观察愈
合情况，采用ASES 评分、Constant-Murley评分及VAS 评分评估肩关节功能及疼痛程度。结果：63 例患者获得随访，随访时间
1~3 年，平均1.9 年。钢板组(33 例)ASES评分(91.01± 4.88)分、Constant-Murley评分(90.21± 3.97)分、VAS 评分(0.58± 0.63)分，满
意率为93.94%；螺钉组(30 例)ASES 评分(80.58± 6.72)分、Constant-Murley 评分(80.67± 7.25)分、VAS 评分(1.08± 0.68)分，满意率
为73.33%，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论：肱骨近端锁定钢板治疗单纯肱骨大结节骨折固定可靠，安全性较高，肩关节功能
恢复好，并发症发生率较低，可获得较为满意的临床效果。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective:To compare the clinical outcomes and safety between locking plate and cannulated screw for the treatment
of humeral greater tuberosity fracture.Methods:81 cases of patients with isolated humeral greater tuberosity fracture from January 2010
to January 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. All of patients were treated by open reduction and fixation with locking plate(LPHP
group) or cannulated screws (screw group). Perioperative conditions such as operation time, hospitalization days, intraoperative blood
loss were recorded. Postoperative follow-up were carried out according to the time point, follow-up duration was at least one year. X-ray
was carried out for observing fracture healing at final follow-up. The visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, American shoulder and elbow
surgeon (ASES) score and Constant-Murley scoring systemfor shoulder function evaluation were recorded.Results:63 eligible patients
could be followed up. Duration of follow-up was 1 to 3 years, the mean follow-up time was 1.9 years. In the LPHP group (33 patients),
ASES scores averaged 91.01, Constant-Murley scores averaged 90.21, VAS scores was (P25-P75, 0-1.00), the satisfaction rate of the
LPHP goup was 93.94%; in the screw group (30 patients), ASES scores averaged 80.58, Constant-Murley scores averaged 80.67, VAS
scores was (P25-P75, 0.5-1.63), the satisfaction rate of the screw group was 73.33%. Differences between two groups were statistically
significant (P<0.05).Conclusion:Compared with cannulated screw fixation, treatment for isolated greater tuberosity fracture with LPHP
has the advantage of more stable fixation, higher security, better shoulder function and lower incidence of complications, therefore can
obtain satisfactory clinical results. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
