摘要
[目的]通过对比复位外固定器与锁定加压钢板治疗老年患者桡骨远端骨折后腕关节功能恢复情况,探讨两种方法治疗的优缺点。[方法]2006年2月~2009年11月收治80例单侧桡骨远端闭合骨折患者,其中闭合复位外固定器治疗38例,切开复位锁定加压钢板治疗42例,通过对两组患者性别、年龄、骨折类型等一般资料比较,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,对两组患者骨折愈合时间、解剖评价标准及腕关节功能进行临床评定。[结果]患者术后均获得随访,随访时间7~28个月,X线片示骨折均愈合,骨折愈合时间外固定器组为（10.6±2.1）周,锁定加压钢板组为（11.6±2.0）周,两组对比差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;术后3个月外固定器组掌倾角7.2°±2.0°、尺偏角19.0°±4.1°;锁定加压钢板治疗组8.8°±2.7°、尺偏角21.6°±2.1°,两组对比有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。[结论]闭合复位外固定器治疗桡骨远端骨折与锁定加压钢板治疗,骨折愈合时间无差异,且均可获得满意的腕关节功能。
[Objective]To evaluate clinical effects of external fixator（EF） versus locking compression plate（LCP）.[Method]The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed from 80 elderly patients with distal radius fractures treated with nonoperation and operation from February 2006 to November 2009.Thirty-eight patients underwent external fixator,and 42 patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation.There were no significant differences（P0.05） in sex,age,disease course and fracture classification between two groups.The healing time,anatomical evaluation and clinical assessment of wrist function were investigated.[Result]All patients were followed up for 7-28 months.Fracture healing was achieved within 8 to 15 weeks.There were no significant differences（P0.05） in fracture healing time between non-operation group and operation group.At last follow-up,the palmar tilt angle was 7.2°±2.0° and 8.8°±2.7°,and the radial inclination angle was 19.0°±4.1° and 21.6°±2.1°,there were significant differences（P0.05） between two groups.[Conclusion]Open reduction and closed reduction can achieve satisfactory functional outcomes,but closed reduction is inferior to open reduction in anatomic reduction.
出处
《中国矫形外科杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2011年第2期106-108,共3页
Orthopedic Journal of China
关键词
外固定器
锁定加压钢板
桡骨远端骨折
疗效观察
external fixator
locking compression plate
distal radius fracture
efficacy comparison
