CAJ | 학술논문

锁定与普通解剖型锁骨钢板在锁骨中段骨折中的疗效比较
쇄정여보통해부형쇄골강판재쇄골중단골절중적료효비교
Comparison of locking and common anatomic clavicle plate in treatment of midshaftclavicular fractures

万方数据

大连医科大学学报大連醫科大學學報 대련의과대학학보
JOURNAL OF DALIAN MEDICAL UNIVERSITY
2014年 1期 54-56,64 ,共4页

林杨景%林炎水%李连宏%蒲静%严小虎%贺军%肖建平%向登%刘金望%赵文

림양경%림염수%리련굉%포정%엄소호%하군%초건평%향등%류금망%조문

锁骨中段骨折%锁定解剖型锁骨钢板%普通解剖型锁骨钢板%疗效鎖骨中段骨摺%鎖定解剖型鎖骨鋼闆%普通解剖型鎖骨鋼闆%療效
쇄골중단골절%쇄정해부형쇄골강판%보통해부형쇄골강판%료효
clavicular fractures%locking anatomic clavicle plate%common anatomic clavicle%clinical effects

目的：比较分析锁定与普通解剖型锁骨钢板在锁骨中段骨折中的疗效。方法回顾2010年1月-2012年12月间使用锁定和普通解剖型锁骨钢板的65例锁骨中段骨折患者的临床资料，其中使用锁定解剖型锁骨钢板的患者29例（A组），使用普通解剖型锁骨钢板的患者36例（B组），比较两组患者骨折愈合时间及肩关节功能（Constant-Murley肩关节功能评定法，CMS）。结果 A组获得平均（7．7±2．1）个月随访，平均骨折愈合时间（15．0±3．4）周；B组获得平均（8．5±3．2）个月随访，平均骨折愈合时间（16．4±2．8）周。 A组肩关节功能评定CMS评分平均（90．4±5．7）分，B组肩关节功能评定CMS评分平均（89．6±5．4）分；两组CMS评分差异无显著性意义，P＞0．05。两组所有骨折获得愈合，无神经损伤、退钉、拔板、钢板断裂等情况发生。结论在锁骨骨折中，锁定解剖型锁骨钢板并不比普通解剖型锁骨钢板具有优势，不建议将锁定钢板作为锁骨中段骨折的常规固定材料，应该根据患者的实际情况选择内固定材料。
목적：비교분석쇄정여보통해부형쇄골강판재쇄골중단골절중적료효。방법회고2010년1월-2012년12월간사용쇄정화보통해부형쇄골강판적65례쇄골중단골절환자적림상자료，기중사용쇄정해부형쇄골강판적환자29례（A조），사용보통해부형쇄골강판적환자36례（B조），비교량조환자골절유합시간급견관절공능（Constant-Murley견관절공능평정법，CMS）。결과 A조획득평균（7．7±2．1）개월수방，평균골절유합시간（15．0±3．4）주；B조획득평균（8．5±3．2）개월수방，평균골절유합시간（16．4±2．8）주。 A조견관절공능평정CMS평분평균（90．4±5．7）분，B조견관절공능평정CMS평분평균（89．6±5．4）분；량조CMS평분차이무현저성의의，P＞0．05。량조소유골절획득유합，무신경손상、퇴정、발판、강판단렬등정황발생。결론재쇄골골절중，쇄정해부형쇄골강판병불비보통해부형쇄골강판구유우세，불건의장쇄정강판작위쇄골중단골절적상규고정재료，응해근거환자적실제정황선택내고정재료。
Objective To compare the clinical effects of locking and common anatomic clavicle plate in treatment of mid -shaft clavicular fractures .Methods We performed retrospective analysis of 65 midshaft clavicular fracture patients , who were treated with locking or common anatomic clavicle plate in the department of orthopaedics at the first affiliated hospital of Chengdu Medical College between January 2010 and December 2012.Among them, 29 patients received locking anatom-ic clavicle plate (group A) and 36 patients received common anatomic clavicle plate (group B).The bone union time and the Constant-Murley scores for the suffered shoulders were compared between the two groups .Results The mean follow-up period was(7.7 ±2.1)months in group A and (8.5 ±3.2) months in group B.The mean radiographic bone union time for group A was (15.0 ±3.4)weeks and(16.4 ±2.8)weeks for common reconstruction plate group (group B).The mean Constant-Murley scores was(90.4 ±5.7)in group A and(89.6 ±5.4)in group B.There was no significant difference be-tween the two groups in Constant -Murley scores (P>0.05).Conclusion Treating patients with midshaft clavicular frac-tures by locking or common anatomic clavicle plate could both receive satisfactory results .It may not be recommended to regularly treat a midshaft clavicular fracture with a locking anatomic clavicle plate .We should choose right internal fixation plate according to the actual situation of patients .