克氏针张力带与解剖型钢板治疗MayoⅡ型尺骨鹰嘴骨折的疗效评价

Efficacy evaluation of Kirschner wire tension band and anatomical plate in the treatment of MayoⅡolecranon fracture

目的探讨克氏针张力带与解剖型钢板治疗MayoⅡ型尺骨鹰嘴骨折的疗效差异。方法回顾性分析2017年7月-2019年7应用克氏针张力带与解剖型钢板治疗的35例MayoⅡ型尺骨鹰嘴骨折患者的病例资料,比较两组骨折恢复时间及功能恢复情况。结果术后两组骨折全部愈合。克氏针张力带组骨折愈合时间平均(16.8±0.83)周;解剖型钢板组骨折愈合时间平均(16.9±0.75)周,两组愈合时间比较差异无统计学意义。按照Broberg-Morrey功能评价标准评价两组患肢功能,差异无统计学意义,但对于MayoⅡB型患者,解剖型钢板组患肢功能恢复评价明显优于克氏针张力带组。结论对于MayoⅡA型的骨折患者,两种固定方式均可选择,但对于MayoⅡB型的骨折患者,建议将解剖型钢板作为首选固定方式。

Objective To evaluate the clinical effects of Kirschner wire tension band and anatomical plate in the treatment of MayoⅡolecranon fracture.Methods From July 2017 to July 2019,35 patients with MayoⅡolecranon fracture treated with Kirschner wire tension band and anatomical plate were followed up,the Fracture healing time and functional recovery were retrospectively analyzed.Results All patients obtained recovery.The fracture healing time of tension band group was 16.8±0.83 weeks on average,and the fracture healing time of anatomical plate group was 16.9±0.75 weeks on average.There was no statistical difference in the healing time between the two groups.According to the function evaluation of BrobergMorrey,there was no significant difference in the functional recovery evaluation of the affected limb between the tension band and the anatomical plate.However,for MayoⅡType B patients,the functional recovery evaluation of the affected limb with the anatomical plate group was significantly better than tension band group.Conclusion For patients with MayoⅡType A fracture,both fixation methods are available.However,for patients with MayoII type A fracture,anatomic plate is recommended as the preferred fixation method.