不同钢板内固定治疗肱骨近端骨折的比较  

Proximal humerus locking plate versus anatomical form plate in treatment of proximal humerus fractures

作　　者：郑鸿[1] 何冰[2] 谭宏昌[1] 钟环[1] 陈继铭[1] 

机构地区：[1]广东医学院附属医院骨外科,湛江524001 [2]广东医学院附属医院护理部,湛江524001

出　　处：《中国实用医药》2013年第19期18-19,共2页China Practical Medicine

摘　　要：目的比较锁定接骨板与解剖接骨板在肱骨近端骨折治疗中的临床效果。方法 65例肱骨近端骨折,采用锁定接骨板治疗35例,解剖接骨板治疗30例,随访观察并比较二组疗效。结果锁定接骨板治疗35例中,优14例,良13例,中6例,差2例,总优良率为77.1%;解剖接骨板治疗30例中,优11例,良9例,中6例,差4例,总优良率为66.7%。两种方法的二部分骨折评分比较无统计学意义(P>0.05),三、四部分骨折评分比较有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论肱骨近端锁定接骨板是治疗肱骨近端骨折,尤其是三部分和四部分骨折的理想内固定材料。Objective To evaluate the clinical result of the treatment of proximal humerus fracture with proximal humerus locking plate and the anatomical form plate.Methods From January 2006 to December 2011,35 patients with proximal humeral fracture treated by proximal humerus locking plate and 30 patients with proximal humeral fracture treated by anatomical form plate were enrolled into the analysis.Neer score and postoperative complications were observed to evaluate the therapeutic effect of the two methods.Results According to the Neer scoring system,there were 14 excellent cases,13 good cases and 2 fair cases in the team of 35 patients treated with proximal humerus locking plate,The total excellent and good rate was 77.1%.there were 11 excellent cases,9 good cases and 4 fair cases in the team of 30 patients treated with anatomical form plate,The total excellent and good rate was 66.7%,there is difference（P0.05） between three-part fracture and four-part fracture in the two treatment.Conclusion The treatment of the proximal humerus fracture with the locking proximal humerus plate is the better choice,especially three-part and four-part fracture.

关 键 词：肱骨近端骨折 锁定接骨板 解剖接骨板 内固定 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]