两种方法治疗Mason Ⅲ型桡骨头骨折的疗效对比  

Comparison of two methods for the treatment of Mason typeⅢradial head fracture

作　　者：郑伟坤[1] 汤俊芬[2] 戈涛[1] 蔡维山[1] ZHENG Wei-kun;TANG Jun-fen;GE Tao;CAI Wei-shan(Guangzhou First People's Hospital,Department of Orthopedics,Guangdong Guangzhou 511457,China;Guangzhou First People's Hospital,Department of Neurology,Guangdong Guangzhou 511457,China)

机构地区：[1]广州市第一人民医院骨科,广东广州511457 [2]广州市第一人民医院神经内科,广东广州511457

出　　处：《临床医药文献电子杂志》2020年第58期4-5,共2页Electronic Journal of Clinical Medical Literature

摘　　要：目的探讨微型钢板内固定和桡骨头假体置换治疗MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析25例MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折者临床资料,内固定组12例,行切开复位微型钢板内固定术;置换组13例,行桡骨头假体置换术。比较两组患者术前、术后肘关节功能(Mayo评分)。结果两组患者术前Mayo评分差异无统计学意义;术后两组患者Mayo评分均较术前明显提高,置换组术后Mayo评分高于内固定组(P<0.05)。结论两种方法均能有效治疗该类复杂骨折,置换术对肘功能改善更佳。Objective To explore the clinical effects of mini-plate internal fixation and radial head prosthesis in treating Mason-typeⅢradial head fracture.Methods 25 patients were retrospectively analyzed,12 cases in the internal fixation group underwent open reduction and micro-plate internal fixation;13 patients in the replacement group underwent radial head prosthesis replacement.The Mayo score was compared before and after the operation.Results No significant difference in Mayo score was found before the operation.But the Mayo score after the operation of replacement group was higher than that of the internal fixation group(P<0.05).Conclusion Both of the two treatments can effectively treat this complex fracture,but replacement can improve elbow function better.

关 键 词：MasonⅢ型桡骨头骨折 内固定术 桡骨头置换术 

分 类 号：R683[医药卫生—骨科学]