比较外固定支架及锁定加压钢板对桡骨远端C型骨折治疗效果.docVIP

比较外固定支架及锁定加压钢板对桡骨远端C型骨折治疗效果 　　[摘要] 目的 分析比较外固定支架（EF）与锁定加压钢板（LCP）对桡骨远端C型骨折的治疗效果，探讨两种术式治疗的优缺点。方法 方便选取2013年1月―2015年9月期间该院收治的146例桡骨远端C型骨折患者，采用随机数字表法将其均分为2组，每组73例患者，选取其中一组行EF治疗，作为EF组；另外一组行LCP治疗，作为LCP组。分析比较两组患者的术后桡骨高度、掌倾角、尺偏角测量结果和患者随访期间的腕关节Gartland-Werley腕关节功能（Gw）评分。结果 LCP组患者的术后桡骨高度（9.74±0.54）mm、掌倾角（9.41±0.66）°、尺偏角（20.87±0.69）°，EF组患者的术后桡骨高度（9.60±0.58）mm、掌倾角（9.25±0.68）°、尺偏角（21.43±0.78）°，两组患者测量结果比较差异无统计学意义（P0.05）；术后6个月和术后9个月时，LCP组患者的Gw评分（3.67±1.13）分、（3.09±1.29）分小于EF组（5.45±1.48）分、（4.12±1.15）分；术后12个月时，两组患者的Gw评分分别为（2.84±1.30）分、（3.16±1.27）分，比较差异无统计学意义（P0.05）。结论 EF和LCP治疗桡骨远端C型骨折的远期疗效相近，但LCP治疗在短期内对患者内关节功能恢复效果更佳 [关键词] EF；LCP；桡骨远端C型骨折 [中图分类号] R68 [文献标识码] A [文章编号] 1674-0742（2017）03（b）-0064-03 [Abstract] Objective To analyze the effect of external fixator and locking compression plate in treatment of fracture of distal c-type radius and study the disadvantages and advantages of the two operation methods. Methods 146 cases of patients with fracture of distal c-type radius treated in our hospital from January 2013 to September 2015 were selected and randomly divided into two groups with 73 cases in each， the EF group adopted the EF group， while the LCP group adopted the LCP group， and the postoperative radius height， palm tilt， ulnar inclination measurement results and wrist joints Gartland-Werley score of patients during the follow-up period were compared between the two groups. Results The differences in the postoperative radius height， palm tilt and ulnar inclination between the LCP group and EF group had no statistical significance[（9.74±0.54）mm， （9.41±0.66）°， （20.87±0.69）° vs （9.60±0.58）mm， （9.25±0.68）°， （21.43±0.78）°]（P0.05）， and the Gw score in the LCP group was lower than that in the EF group in 6-month and 9-month after operation [（3.67±1.13）points，（3.09±1.29）points vs （2.84±1.30）points，（3.16±1.27）points]， and the Gw score in the LCP group and EF group at 12-month after operation was respectively （2.84±1.30）points and （3.16±1.27）points， and the difference had no statist