中国组织工程研究

中国组织工程研究 ›› 2012, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (26): 4936-4940.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8225.2012.26.037

• 骨与关节临床实践 clinical practice of the bone and joint • 上一篇    

三种金属植入体内固定治疗肱骨干骨折的比较

郭 暉   

  1. 贵阳医学院附属医院急诊外科，贵州省贵阳市 550000
  • 收稿日期:2012-01-11 修回日期:2012-03-21 出版日期:2012-06-24 发布日期:2013-11-02
  • 作者简介:郭暉，男，1962年生，贵州省贵阳市人，汉族，贵阳医学院毕业，副主任医师，主要从事髋关节股骨头坏死的临床治疗及基础研究。 guohui0101@126.com

Three internal fixation methods for humeral shaft fracture

Guo Hu   

  1. Department of Emergency Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Guiyang Medical College, Guiyang 550000, Guizhou Province, China
  • Received:2012-01-11 Revised:2012-03-21 Online:2012-06-24 Published:2013-11-02
  • About author:Guo Hui, Associate chief physician, Department of Emergency Surgery, the Affiliated Hospital of Guiyang Medical College, Guiyang 550000, Guizhou Province, China guohui0101@126.com

PDF

533

被引次数

22

摘要：

背景：目前，对管状骨骨折的内固定多采用髓内钉固定和钢板固定两种方式。交锁髓内钉以其适应证广、创伤小、固定牢等优点已经成为治疗长骨干骨折的金标准。
目的：比较微创锁定钢板、可膨胀髓内钉与交锁髓内针3种内固定方法治疗肱骨干骨折的效果。
方法：66例肱骨干骨折患者根据内固定方式不同分为3组，分别采用微创钢板、可膨胀髓内钉及交锁髓内针内固定，3组均采用常规内固定入路，比较3组患者骨折愈合时间及并发症。
结果与结论：3组骨折愈合时间差异无显著性意义。3组内固定后并发症比较差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05)，但是各有不同。结果表明3种内固定方式治疗肱骨干骨折均可取得满意疗效。在治疗应根据骨折的类型和损伤的程度合理选择固定方式。

关键词: 肱骨干骨折, 交锁髓内钉, 锁定钢板, 膨胀髓内钉, 内固定, 植入体

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: At present, the intramedullary nailing fixation and plate fixation are the two main ways for the fixation of bone fracture. Inter-locking intramedullary nail with its wide indication, small trauma, stable fixation and other advantages has become the gold standard for the treatment of long bone fracture.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effect of minimally invasive locking plate, expandable intramedullary nail and inter-locking intramedullary nail fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fracture.
METHODS: Sixty-six patients with humeral shaft fractures were divided into three groups according to different fixation methods. The three groups were treated with minimally invasive locking plate, expandable intramedullary nail and inter-locking intramedullary nail fixation respectively. The routine fix approach was applied in the three groups, and the healing time and the complications in the three groups were compared.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference of the healing time among three groups. There was no significant difference of complications among three groups after fixation (P > 0.05), but different in each group. Through this clinical observation, we can come to conclusion that the methods of three groups have good clinic curative effect in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. In the clinical treatment, we should choice reasonable fixed way according to the kind of fracture and the extent of the damage.

中图分类号: