桡骨远端C3型骨折不同治疗方法的回顾性研究

RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENT TREATMENT METHODS OF DISTAL RADIUS C3 FRACTURES

目的探讨C3型桡骨远端骨折有效治疗方法。方法回顾性分析52例桡骨远端C3型骨折的患者,分别采用闭合复位外固定架固定和切开复位锁定加压钢板内固定2种方法 ,其中闭合复位外固定架组34例,切开复位锁定加压钢板18例,比较2种治疗方法之间复位标准及功能标准的优良率。结果 52例患者术后均获得随访,随访时间19～36个月,平均28个月。按Gartland和Werley腕关节功能评估标准进行评定,闭合复位外固定架固定组优良率88.2%,切开复位锁定加压钢板内固定组优良率88.8%。2组尺偏角和桡骨高度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);外固定架组掌倾角小于锁定加压钢板组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论切开复位锁定加压钢板内固定与闭合复位外固定架固定效果差异无统计学意义,外固定架在治疗桡骨远端C3型骨折的应用上占有一席之地。

Objective To evaluate the clinical result after treatment on fracture of distal radius type 3 with different fixations. Methods The clinical data of 52 cases of distal radius C3 type fracture patients, using two fixing methods-closed reduction external fixator fixation （34 cases） and open reduction locking compression plate fixation （18 cases ） were retrospectively analyzed. Then, the fine rate of reduction criteria and function standard between the two treatments were compared. Results After the operation,all the 52 patients were followed up for 19 -36 months, with an average of 28 months. According to the wrist function evaluation standard of Gartland and Wedey, the fine rate of closed reset external fixator fixed group was 88.2% , and 88.8% for the open reduction locking compression plate internal fixation group. There were no statistical significant differences between two groups in measurement of angle and radius height （ P 〉 0.05 ）. The palm angle of external fixator group was less than that of locking compression plate group, there was statistically significant difference between two groups （P 〈 0. 05）. Conclusion There is no significant difference in efficacy between open reduction locking compression plate and closed reset closed reduction external fixator fixation external fixator fixed. External fixator has a place in treatment of distal radius fractures C3 type.