普通解剖型锁骨钢板和锁定解剖型锁骨钢板在锁骨中段骨折治疗中应用价值对比

摘要

目的：探讨普通解剖型锁骨钢板和锁定解剖型锁骨钢板在锁骨中段骨折治疗中的应用价值。方法：回顾性分析2012年4月至2013年9月收治的81例锁骨中段骨折患者的临床资料，按治疗方法分为实验组和对照组。实验组采用普通解剖型锁骨钢板治疗，对照组采用锁定解剖型锁骨钢板治疗，比较两组患者手术时间、CMS评分、住院时间、骨折愈合时间以及并发症发生情况。结果：实验组患者优良率达到85．36％，对照组为90．00％，对照组稍高于实验组，但两组患者比较差异无统计学意义（2＝0．087，P＞0．05）。两组患者手术时间、住院时间、切口愈合时间和CMS评分均较为接近，组间比较差异无统计学意义（ P＞0．05）。实验组患者并发症总发生率为19．51％，而对照组为22．50％，两组患者并发症总发生率比较差异无统计学意义（2＝0．728，P＞0．05）。结论：普通解剖型锁骨钢板和锁定解剖型锁骨钢板在锁骨中段骨折治疗中疗效相当，临床治疗时可根据实际需求进行选择。%Objective:To investigate the clinical effect of locking anatomic clavicle plate and common anatomic clavicle plate in treatment of midshaftclavicular fractures.Method:A retrospective study was made on 81 cases of patients from Apr.2012 to Sep.2013 in our hospital.And they were divided into experimental group and control group by different treatment,experimental group were treated with common anatomic clavi-cle,the control group were treated with locking anatomic clavicle plate.Operating duration,time to union,hos-pitalization time,the CMS score and complication rate were compared.Result:The control group excellent and good rate patients in the experimental group reached 85.36%, 90%, no significant difference between the two groups of patients(χ2=0.087,P>0.05).Operating duration,time to union,hospitalization time,the CMS score between two groups had no significant difference(P>0.05).The overall complication rate of the patients in the experimental group was 19.51%, while the control group was 22.50%, the total incidence of patients in two groups had no significant difference in complication rate(χ2=0.728,P>0.05) .Conclusion:Locking anatomic clavicle plate and common anatomic clavicle plate have similar efficacy in the treatment of midshaftclavicular fractures.