切开复位内固定术与桡骨头切除治疗桡骨头骨折的疗效比较  

Clinical efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation plus radial head resection in treatment of radial head fractures

作　　者：李恒超[1] 杨明[1] 付中国[1] 张殿英[1] 姜保国[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京大学人民医院创伤骨科、北京大学交通医学中心,100044

出　　处：《中华创伤杂志》2011年第10期905-908,共4页Chinese Journal of Trauma

基　　金：国家“十一五”科技支撑计划基金资助项目（2007BAl04800）;国家杰出青年基金资助项目（30625036）;国家自然科学青年基金资助项目（30801169）;国家自然科学基金资助项目（30971526）;国家自然科学基金资助项目（30973066）

摘　　要：目的分析Masonm型或Ⅳ型桡骨头骨折行切开复位内固定术及桡骨头切除术的预后疗效，探讨临床治疗该类骨折手术方式的选择。方法桡骨头骨折23例，男11例，女12例。行桡骨头切除8例（MasonⅢ型3例，Ⅳ型5例）；行切开复位内固定15例（Ⅲ型7例，Ⅳ型8例），其中板钉系统固定8例，螺钉合并克氏针固定7例。术后从肘关节活动度、x线片表现、视觉模拟疼痛评分（VAS）、患者满意度、手臂肩残疾问卷表（DASH）及Broberg＆Morrey功能评分等进行疗效评定。结果平均随访时间35个月（12～65个月），所有患者骨折均愈合，无创伤性关节炎发生。切开复位内固定组及桡骨头切除组肘关节屈曲伸直弧度分别平均为132°及79．4°（P〈0．01），患者满意度分别平均为9．1分及8分（P〈0．05）。Broberg＆Morrey肘关节功能评分：切开复位内固定组平均93．9分，优9例，良5例，可1例，差0例；桡骨头切除组平均80．6分，优2例，良2例，可4例，差0例。两组比较，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。切开复位内固定组及桡骨头切除组DASH评分分别平均2．9分及18．1分（P〈0．05）。结论MasonⅢ型或Ⅳ型桡骨头骨折行切开复位内固定可以获得比桡骨头切除术更好的肘关节活动度、肘关节功能、日常生活功能及患者满意度，建议此类患者优先选择切开复位内固定治疗，尽力重建或修复桡骨头。Objective To investigate the prognostic outcome of open reduction and internal fixation （ORIF） with radial head resection in treatment of comminuted radial head fractures so as to discuss the corresponding operation options. Methods A series of 23 patients with Mason type Ⅲ or Ⅳ radial head fractures were enrolled in the study including 11 males and 12 females. Eight patients （three with Mason type Ⅲ and five with Mason type Ⅳ ） underwent radial head resection and 15 （seven with Mason type Ⅲ and eight with Mason type Ⅳ） received open reduction and internal fixation including nail and plate fixation in eight and screw and K-wire fixation in seven. The outcomes were assessed in regard 6f range of motion, radiographic findings, visual analogous scale （VAS） of pain, patient satisfaction degree, disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand score system （DASH） and the Broberg ＆ Money elbow performance score system. Results The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 65 months （mean 35 months）, which showed fracture healing in all patients, with no traumatic arthritis happened. The mean range of flexion and extension arc at the elbow of ORIF group and resection group was 132°and 79.4° （P 〈0.01） and the patient satisfaction was 9. 1 and 8.0 （P 〈 O. 05 ） respectively. According to the Broberg ＆ Morrey elbow performance score system, the score was average 93.9 in the ORIF group, with excellent result in nine patients, good in five and fair in one, while the score was average 80.6 in the resection group, with excellent result in two patients, good in two and fair in four. There was statistical difference between two groups （P 〈 0.01 ）. The DASH score of the ORIF and resection group was 2.9 and 18. l respectively （ P 〈 0.05 ）. Conclusions ORIF has better elbow motion, elbow function, daily living and satisfactory outcomes than radial head resection and is recommended for treatment of Mason type Ⅲ or Ⅳ radial head fractures for repair of the radial head as far as

关 键 词：桡骨骨折 骨折固定术 内 桡骨头切除 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]