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

Comparison of Locking Compression Plate vs Reconstruction Plate for the Fixation of Displaced Mid-shaft Clavicle Fractures

【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（Pd0．05），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 mid- shaft 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 be- tween 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.