检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]泸州医学院附属中医医院骨科,四川泸州646000
出 处:《四川医学》2012年第11期1935-1937,共3页Sichuan Medical Journal
摘 要:目的通过比较锁定钢板与传统解剖钢板治疗复杂肱骨近端骨折(NeerⅢ,Ⅳ)疗效,探讨锁定钢板治疗复杂的肱骨近端骨折疗效是否存在优势性。方法对45例复杂肱骨近端骨折分别采用肱骨近端锁定钢板和解剖钢板进行内固定,从骨性愈合时间,术后功能恢复,及内固定失败率方面观察。结果 45例随访6~36个月,骨性愈合时间,术后功能恢复,及内固定失败率方面两组有明显差异;两组优良率有明显差异。结论锁定钢板治疗复杂肱骨近端骨折疗效更佳。Objective By comparing the lock plate and anatomic plate in the treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures(to Neer III,IV) efficacy,to investigate whether there is dominance.Methods 45 cases of complex humeral proximal fractures using lock plates or anatomic plate fixation,the data of bone healing time,functional recovery and fixation failure rate were recorded.Results All the patients were followed for 6~36 months,there were significant differences in bone healing time,functional recovery and fixation failure rate between two groups.Conclusion Lock plate for treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures is better.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.126