Objective To compare the clinical effect of small splint and external fixator immobilization in the treatment of distal radius comminuted fracture. Methods 56 patients with distal radius comminuted fracture, who were diagnosed and treated in our hospital from January 2012 to June 2013, were selected and were randomly divided into small splint fixation group and external fixator immobilization group. To treated the two groups according to corresponding fixation methods, to make reduction and function evaluation during the follow-up process of the two groups after discharge, to make statistics and dispose the patients' complication.ResultsTo follow-up 3-21 months with the average follow-up time of 14.1 months. The excellent efficacy evaluation in small splint fixation group(15 cases) with the excellent and good rate of 53.6%(15/28), while which in external fixator immobilization group(24 cases) with the excellent and good rate of 85.7%(24/28), the differences were statically significant(P<0.05). The complication had occurred in the two groups, the symptoms of which were remission and elimination progressively. Conclusion The problem of how to keep the stability of fracture after reduction on the treatment of distal radius comminuted fracture should be solved and be attention. External fixator immobilization is obviously better on reductive maintenance and recovery function compared with which of small splint fixation, is worthy of further clinical study.%目的：比较小夹板固定和支架外固定治疗桡骨远端粉碎性骨折患者的临床疗效。方法选取2012年1月～2013年6月来我院进行诊治的56例桡骨远端粉碎性骨折患者，随机分为小夹板固定组和支架外固定组，按分组进行相应的固定治疗方法，出院后对两组患者随访，随访过程进行复位和功能评价，并对患者的并发症进行统计和处理。结果治疗后随访3～21个月，平均14.1个月。小夹板固定组患者疗效评价优良15例，优良率为53.6%（15/28）；支架外固定组患者优良24例，优良率为85.7%（24/28），支架外固定组患者疗效优良例数明显多于小夹板固定组，两组患者优良率相比，差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；两组患者均有一定的并发症发生，经过相应的治疗后，症状均逐步缓解、消除。结论治疗桡骨远端粉碎性骨折患者，需要解决和重视的问题是如何保持复位后骨折的稳定性。支架外固定方法在维持复位和恢复功能方面明显优于小夹板固定，值得临床上进一步研究。
展开▼
