当代医学
噹代醫學
당대의학
CHINA CONTEMPORARY MEDICINE
2015年
1期
73-74
,共2页
不同治疗方法%桡骨远端骨折%临床效果
不同治療方法%橈骨遠耑骨摺%臨床效果
불동치료방법%뇨골원단골절%림상효과
Different treatment methods%Distal radius fracture%Clinical effect
目的:探讨分析不同方法治疗桡骨远端骨折的临床效果。方法随机选取90例接受治疗的桡骨远端骨折患者,随机均分为闭合复位组、切开复位组和支架固定组(n=30)。给予闭合复位组患者闭合复位小夹板石膏外固定,给予切开复位组患者切开复位钢板固定,给予支架固定组患者支架外固定,比较3组患者的治疗效果。结果闭合复位组的总有效率(100.00%)显著优于切开复位组(80.00%)和支架固定组(70.00%),闭合复位组的患者满意度(100.00%)显著优于切开复位组(73.33%)和支架固定组(66.67%),差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论需结合患者身体素质及经济状况选择桡骨远端骨折的具体治疗方案,支架外固定法和切开复位钢板固定法相比,闭合复位小夹板石膏外固定治疗有效率较高,患者更易接受。
目的:探討分析不同方法治療橈骨遠耑骨摺的臨床效果。方法隨機選取90例接受治療的橈骨遠耑骨摺患者,隨機均分為閉閤複位組、切開複位組和支架固定組(n=30)。給予閉閤複位組患者閉閤複位小夾闆石膏外固定,給予切開複位組患者切開複位鋼闆固定,給予支架固定組患者支架外固定,比較3組患者的治療效果。結果閉閤複位組的總有效率(100.00%)顯著優于切開複位組(80.00%)和支架固定組(70.00%),閉閤複位組的患者滿意度(100.00%)顯著優于切開複位組(73.33%)和支架固定組(66.67%),差異均具有統計學意義(P<0.05)。結論需結閤患者身體素質及經濟狀況選擇橈骨遠耑骨摺的具體治療方案,支架外固定法和切開複位鋼闆固定法相比,閉閤複位小夾闆石膏外固定治療有效率較高,患者更易接受。
목적:탐토분석불동방법치료뇨골원단골절적림상효과。방법수궤선취90례접수치료적뇨골원단골절환자,수궤균분위폐합복위조、절개복위조화지가고정조(n=30)。급여폐합복위조환자폐합복위소협판석고외고정,급여절개복위조환자절개복위강판고정,급여지가고정조환자지가외고정,비교3조환자적치료효과。결과폐합복위조적총유효솔(100.00%)현저우우절개복위조(80.00%)화지가고정조(70.00%),폐합복위조적환자만의도(100.00%)현저우우절개복위조(73.33%)화지가고정조(66.67%),차이균구유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론수결합환자신체소질급경제상황선택뇨골원단골절적구체치료방안,지가외고정법화절개복위강판고정법상비,폐합복위소협판석고외고정치료유효솔교고,환자경역접수。
Objective To explore and analyze the clinical effect of different treatment.Methods Divided 90 distal radius fracture patients who were treated in Traditional Chinese medicine hospital in Ruichang City from 2011 March to 2014 March into closed reduction group, open reduction group and stent ifxation group (n=30). Close reduction group patients were treated with closed reduction and small splint and plaster external ifxation; open reduction group were given open reduction and plate ifxation; bracket ifxation group were given external ifxation, compared the treatment effect of 3 groups.Results The total effective rate of closed reduction group (100%) was signiifcantly better than open reduction group (80%) and bracket ifxation group (70%), close reduction group’s satisfaction (100%) was signiifcantly better than open reduction group’s (73.33%) and bracket ifxation group’s (66.67%), the difference was statistically signiifcant (P<0.05).Conclusion We should choose treatment method of distal radius fractures according to patients’ physical quality and the economic situation. Compared with external ifxation and open reduction method, closed reduction and plaster external ifxation of small splint has high effective rate, and patients are more likely to accept.