分析比较三种手术方案治疗锁骨中段骨折的疗效  

Analysis and comparison of effect of three operative schemes in treatment of middle clavicle fracture

作　　者：程邦君[1] 罗轶[1] CHENG Bangjun;LUO Yi(Department of Orthopedics,Jinshan Branch of Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital,Shanghai 201500,China)

机构地区：[1]上海市第六人民医院金山分院骨科,上海201500

出　　处：《中国医学工程》2021年第12期56-60,共5页China Medical Engineering

摘　　要：目的比较三种不同内固定方案治疗Robinson ⅡA和ⅡB型锁骨中段骨折的临床效果。方法选取2014年9月至2019年1月在上海市第六人民医院金山分院符合Robinson分型诊段的锁骨中段骨折患者95例。分为三组:分别采用弹性髓内钉固定治疗(TEN组)、解剖型锁定加压接骨板的微创经皮内固定治疗(MIPPO组)和解剖型锁定加压接骨板的传统切开复位内固定治疗(ORIF组)。比较三组手术方式的切口长度、手术时间、术中出血量、材料费用、术后并发症、骨折愈合时间及肩关节功能等指标。结果所有患者均获得12个月的随访复查。切口长度:传统切开复位内固定组明显长于弹性髓内钉固定组和微创经皮内固定组(P<0.05);手术时间:微创经皮内固定组和弹性髓内钉固定组短于传统切开复位内固定组(P<0.05);术中出血量:传统切开复位内固定组多于弹性髓内钉固定组和微创经皮内固定组(P<0.05);材料费用:传统切开复位内固定组和微创经皮内固定组多于弹性髓内钉固定组(P<0.05);骨折愈合时间:传统切开复位内固定组长于弹性髓内钉固定组和微创经皮内固定组(P<0.05);术后并发症及肩关节功能方面三组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论三种手术方案在治疗Robinson ⅡA和ⅡB型锁骨中段骨折均取得良好效果。随着人们对皮肤美观的追求,弹性髓内钉内固定和微创经皮内固定技术将变得越来越普及。【Objective】 To compare the clinical effects of three different internal fixation schemes in the treatment of Robinson ⅡA and ⅡB middle clavicular fractures. 【Methods】 Ninety-five cases of middle clavicular fracture treated in our hospital from September 2014 to January 2019 were selected. They were divided into three groups: TEN group, MIPPO group and ORIF group. The incision length, operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, material cost, postoperative complications, fracture healing time and shoulder joint function of the three groups were compared. 【Results】 All patients were followed up for 12 months. Incision length: the traditional open reduction and internal fixation group was significantly longer than the elastic intramedullary nailing group and the minimally invasive percutaneous fixation group(P<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between the elastic intramedullary nailing group and the minimally invasive percutaneous fixation group.Operation time: the traditional open reduction and internal fixation group was significantly longer than the minimally invasive percutaneous fixation group and the elastic intramedullary nailing group(P<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between the minimally invasive percutaneous fixation group and the elastic intramedullary nailing group. Intraoperative bleeding volume: the traditional open reduction and internal fixation group was significantly more than the elastic intramedullary nailing group and the minimally invasive percutaneous internal fixation group(P<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference between the elastic intramedullary nailing group and the minimally invasive percutaneous internal fixation group.Material cost: the elastic intramedullary nailing group was significantly lower than the traditional open reduction and internal fixation group and the minimally invasive percutaneous internal fixation group(P<0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference betw

关 键 词：锁骨中段骨折 弹性髓内钉 微创经皮内固定 传统切开复位内固定 

分 类 号：R683.1[医药卫生—骨科学]