摘要
目的:分析比较鹰嘴解剖形接骨板与张力带治疗尺骨鹰嘴骨折的疗效。方法:随机选取2012年8月-2013年8月在本院就诊的尺骨鹰嘴骨折患者60例作为研究对象,在2013年8月-2014年8月对术后患者进行完全随访。将60例研究对象随机分为试验组和对照组各30例,对照组采用克氏针张力带钢丝固定法,试验组采用鹰嘴解剖形接骨板固定法。术后通过完全随访,追踪患者的康复情况,包括肘关节功能评定、骨折愈合状况和并发症发生率等,对两组患者尺骨鹰嘴骨折治疗效果进行比较。结果:本次研究60例患者均得到随访,骨折均获得骨性愈合。试验组优25例,良3例,可2例,优良率93.3%;对照组优23例,良4例,可2例,差1例,优良率90.0%。两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:鹰嘴解剖形接骨板与张力带内固定这两种治疗尺骨鹰嘴骨折的方法在疗效上无明显差别,都是较为有效的治疗方法,临床上对于尺骨鹰嘴骨折的治疗需要针对不同骨折类型和人群需要而选择不同的手术方法。
Objective：To analyze the efficacy of olecranon shaped plate and tension band in the treatment of olecranon fractures.Method：60 patients were randomly selected from August 2012 to August 2013 in our hospital for the study, patients were postoperative followed-up completely in August 2013 to August 2014.The 60 cases studied were randomly divided into an experimental group and a control group of 30 patients, the control group were treated with tension band wire fixation method, the experimental group were treated with olecranon anatomical shaped plate fixation.To track the rehabilitation of patient’s condition, including the elbow function assessment, fracture healing and complication rates by postoperative following-up completely.The olecranon fracture treatment of the two groups was compared. Result： 60 patients were followed up in this study ,they all get healed fractures.In the experimental group,25 cases of excellent, 3 cases of good,2 cases of can ,good rate of 93.3%;in the control group,23 cases of excellent,4 cases of good,2 cases of can and 1 case of poor,good rate of 90.0%.There were no statistically significant difference （P〉0.05）.Conclusion：There are no significant difference between the olecranon anatomical shaped plate fixed and tension band in the efficacy of the treatment of olecranon fractures ,they are all the more effective treatment. The chosen of different surgical methods needs according to the different fracture types and people for clinical treatment of olecranon fractures.
出处
《中国医学创新》
CAS
2015年第2期13-15,共3页
Medical Innovation of China
