锁定加压钢板与重建钢板内固定治疗锁骨中段移位骨折的效果比较

摘要

[目的]比较锁定加压钢板(LCP)与重建钢板(RP)内固定治疗锁骨中段移位骨折的疗效.[方法]2005年1月至2007年7月,对采用LCP或RP治疗的96例锁骨中段移位骨折患者的资料进行回顾性分析,其中46例患者采用RP治疗(RP组),50例患者采用LCP治疗(LCP组).比较两组患者的一般情况、术后并发症、术后6个月及术后1年Constant评分.[结果]两组患者的手术时间、失血量、骨折愈合率、愈合时间差异均有显著性(P<0.05),LCP组优于RP组,但两组术后并发症发生率差异无显著性(P>0.05);两组患者术后6个月及术后1年Constant评分差异均有显著性(P<0.01或P<0.05),LCP组优于RP组.[结论]LCP治疗有移位的锁骨中段骨折比RP手术时间更短、术中失血更少、骨折愈合更快、功能恢复更好.%[Objective] To compare the efficacy of locking compression plate(LCP) vs reconstruction plate (RP) for the treatment of displaced mid shaft clavicle fractures so as to provide the clinical evidences for the choice of the treatment method of mid shaft clavicle fractures. [Methods]Totally 96 cases of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures were treated by LCP or RP in our hospital from May 2007 to May 2009 were analyzed retrospectively. RP group( n=46) received RP treatment and LCP group( n=50) received LCP treatment.General condition, postoperative complications and Constant scores at 6 and 12 months after operation were compared between two groups. [Results] There were significant differences in the operation time, blood loss volume, the rate and time of bone union between two groups( P ＜0.05), and LCP group was better than RP group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between two groups ( P ＞0.05). There was significant difference in the Constant scores 6 months and a year after operation between two groups( P ＜0.01 or P ＜0.05), and PCL group was better than RP group. [Conclusion] LCP for the treatment of displaced mid shaft clavicle fractures has shorter operation time, less blood loss, more rapid bone union and better functional recovery than RP.