两种固定方式治疗股骨髁间粉碎骨折的疗效比较  

Efficacy Comparison of Two Supporting Methods in Treating Comminuted Fracture of the Femoral Condyle

作　　者：葛孚章[1] 郑进友 

机构地区：[1]泰山医学院运动医学研究所,山东泰安271002 [2]泰安市中医医院骨科,山东泰安271000

出　　处：《辽宁医学院学报》2013年第3期48-49,共2页Journal of Liaoning Medical University (LNMU) Bimonthly

摘　　要：目的比较应用动力髁钢板(DCS)、锁定加压钢板(LCP)治疗股骨髁间骨折,研究股骨髁间粉碎骨折的最佳治疗方法。方法分析47例股骨髁间粉碎骨折手术患者,其中18例采DCS固定(A组),29例采用LCP固定(B组)。从骨折愈合时间、膝关节功能、并发症发生率、治疗费用4个方面进行比较。结果两组间骨折愈合时间、膝关节功能无明显差别(P>0.05),但手术时间、并发症发生率、费用方面差异明显(P<0.01);B组在手术时间、并发症发生率方面优于A组,A组在费用方面优于B组。结论 DCS、LCP都是治疗股骨髁间粉碎骨折的可靠方法。LCP固定具有手术时间短、并发症少等优点,但存在费用高的缺点,选择内固定材料时我们应综合考虑。Objective To compare the effect of dynamic condylar steel plate （DCS） and locking compression plate （LCP） in the treatment of femoral condyle fracture, so as to find out which one is better. Methods 47 cases of patients with comminuted fracture of femoral condyle treated with operation were divided into two groups, 18 of which were suppor- ted with DCS （ group A） and 29 were supported with LCP （ group B）. Cases in the two groups were compared in terms of healing time, knee function, costs and incidence of complications. Results There was no significant difference in healing time and knee function （ P 〉 0. 05 ） , there was great difference in operating time, costs and the incidence of complications （P 〈0. 01 ）. Group B was better than Group A in aspects of operating time and incidence of complications. Group A cost less than group B. Conclusion Both of DCS and LCP are reliable methods for treating comminuted fracture of the femoral condyle. LCP takes shorter operating time and causes fewer complications, but costs more. Doctors should take all factors into account when they choose fixing materials.

关 键 词：股骨髁间骨折 固定 疗效比较 

分 类 号：R681.8[医药卫生—骨科学]