河北医学
河北醫學
하북의학
HEBEI MEDICINE
2015年
8期
1454-1456,1457
,共4页
普通解剖型锁骨钢板%锁定解剖型锁骨钢板%锁骨中段骨折
普通解剖型鎖骨鋼闆%鎖定解剖型鎖骨鋼闆%鎖骨中段骨摺
보통해부형쇄골강판%쇄정해부형쇄골강판%쇄골중단골절
Common anatomic clavicle%Locking anatomic clavicle plate%Midshaftclavicular frac-tures
目的:探讨普通解剖型锁骨钢板和锁定解剖型锁骨钢板在锁骨中段骨折治疗中的应用价值。方法:回顾性分析2012年4月至2013年9月收治的81例锁骨中段骨折患者的临床资料,按治疗方法分为实验组和对照组。实验组采用普通解剖型锁骨钢板治疗,对照组采用锁定解剖型锁骨钢板治疗,比较两组患者手术时间、CMS评分、住院时间、骨折愈合时间以及并发症发生情况。结果:实验组患者优良率达到85.36%,对照组为90.00%,对照组稍高于实验组,但两组患者比较差异无统计学意义(2=0.087,P>0.05)。两组患者手术时间、住院时间、切口愈合时间和CMS评分均较为接近,组间比较差异无统计学意义( P>0.05)。实验组患者并发症总发生率为19.51%,而对照组为22.50%,两组患者并发症总发生率比较差异无统计学意义(2=0.728,P>0.05)。结论:普通解剖型锁骨钢板和锁定解剖型锁骨钢板在锁骨中段骨折治疗中疗效相当,临床治疗时可根据实际需求进行选择。
目的:探討普通解剖型鎖骨鋼闆和鎖定解剖型鎖骨鋼闆在鎖骨中段骨摺治療中的應用價值。方法:迴顧性分析2012年4月至2013年9月收治的81例鎖骨中段骨摺患者的臨床資料,按治療方法分為實驗組和對照組。實驗組採用普通解剖型鎖骨鋼闆治療,對照組採用鎖定解剖型鎖骨鋼闆治療,比較兩組患者手術時間、CMS評分、住院時間、骨摺愈閤時間以及併髮癥髮生情況。結果:實驗組患者優良率達到85.36%,對照組為90.00%,對照組稍高于實驗組,但兩組患者比較差異無統計學意義(2=0.087,P>0.05)。兩組患者手術時間、住院時間、切口愈閤時間和CMS評分均較為接近,組間比較差異無統計學意義( P>0.05)。實驗組患者併髮癥總髮生率為19.51%,而對照組為22.50%,兩組患者併髮癥總髮生率比較差異無統計學意義(2=0.728,P>0.05)。結論:普通解剖型鎖骨鋼闆和鎖定解剖型鎖骨鋼闆在鎖骨中段骨摺治療中療效相噹,臨床治療時可根據實際需求進行選擇。
목적:탐토보통해부형쇄골강판화쇄정해부형쇄골강판재쇄골중단골절치료중적응용개치。방법:회고성분석2012년4월지2013년9월수치적81례쇄골중단골절환자적림상자료,안치료방법분위실험조화대조조。실험조채용보통해부형쇄골강판치료,대조조채용쇄정해부형쇄골강판치료,비교량조환자수술시간、CMS평분、주원시간、골절유합시간이급병발증발생정황。결과:실험조환자우량솔체도85.36%,대조조위90.00%,대조조초고우실험조,단량조환자비교차이무통계학의의(2=0.087,P>0.05)。량조환자수술시간、주원시간、절구유합시간화CMS평분균교위접근,조간비교차이무통계학의의( P>0.05)。실험조환자병발증총발생솔위19.51%,이대조조위22.50%,량조환자병발증총발생솔비교차이무통계학의의(2=0.728,P>0.05)。결론:보통해부형쇄골강판화쇄정해부형쇄골강판재쇄골중단골절치료중료효상당,림상치료시가근거실제수구진행선택。
Objective:To investigate the clinical effect of locking anatomic clavicle plate and common anatomic clavicle plate in treatment of midshaftclavicular fractures.Method:A retrospective study was made on 81 cases of patients from Apr.2012 to Sep.2013 in our hospital.And they were divided into experimental group and control group by different treatment,experimental group were treated with common anatomic clavi-cle,the control group were treated with locking anatomic clavicle plate.Operating duration,time to union,hos-pitalization time,the CMS score and complication rate were compared.Result:The control group excellent and good rate patients in the experimental group reached 85.36%, 90%, no significant difference between the two groups of patients(χ2=0.087,P>0.05).Operating duration,time to union,hospitalization time,the CMS score between two groups had no significant difference(P>0.05).The overall complication rate of the patients in the experimental group was 19.51%, while the control group was 22.50%, the total incidence of patients in two groups had no significant difference in complication rate(χ2=0.728,P>0.05) .Conclusion:Locking anatomic clavicle plate and common anatomic clavicle plate have similar efficacy in the treatment of midshaftclavicular fractures.