锁定加压板与解剖重建板治疗锁骨粉碎性骨折的疗效及远期安全性比较  

The comparison between curative efficacy and long-term safety of locking compression plate and anatomical reconstruction in the treatment of clavicle comminuted fracture

作　　者：钱金黔[1] 赵新华[1] 赵志芳[1] 郑洁[1] 

机构地区：[1]解放军第117医院,浙江杭州310013

出　　处：《实用临床医药杂志》2015年第14期78-80,共3页Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice

摘　　要：目的比较研究锁定加压板与解剖重建板治疗锁骨粉碎性骨折的疗效及远期安全性。方法选择本院接受锁骨粉碎性骨折治疗的120例患者作为研究病例,分为研究组和对照组,对照组患者给予解剖重建板手术治疗,研究组患者给予锁定加压板术进行治疗。观察2组患者手术一般情况,比较术后优良率及并发症发生率。结果 2组患者术中出血量及术后愈合时间基本相符,比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);研究组患者术后并发症发生率显著小于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);研究组患者的优良率明显优于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论锁定加压板治疗锁骨粉碎性骨折的疗效较解剖重建板更显著,并发症率更低,优良率更高,安全可靠适合临床长期推广应用。Objective To investigate curative efficacy and long -- term safety of locking compression plate and anatomical reconstruction in the treatment of clavicle comminuted fracture. Methods A total of 120 patients with clavicle fractures in our hospital were divided into study group and control group, the control group were treated with anatomical reconstruction plate thera- py while the study group was treated with locking compression plate surgery treatment. The intra- operative blood, fracture healing time, good rate and complication rate of the two groups were ob- served and compared. Results Intraoperative blood and fracture healing time of the two groups were basically consistent, the difference were not statistically significant （P 〉0.05）. The incidence of postoperative complications of the study group was significantly lower than the control group, the difference was statistically significant （P 〈 0.05）. The good rate of the study group was significant- ly better than that in the control group, the difference was statistically significant （P 〈 0.05 ）. Con- clusion The effect of locking compression plate clavicle fractures is more pronounced than the anatomical reconstruction plate, and it has a lower complication rate, more security, so it is reliable for long- term clinical application.

关 键 词：锁定加压板 解剖重建板 锁骨粉碎性骨折 远期安全性 

分 类 号：R473.6[医药卫生—护理学]