锁定钢板与解剖钢板治疗股骨远端骨折的效果比较

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (15)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (0 KB) HTML (32 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective To investigate the clinical effect of locking plate and anatomical plate in the treatment of distal femoral fractures. Methods Sixty-six patients with distal femoral fractures treated in our hospital from November 2016 to November 2018 were selected as the research subjects.They were divided into group Ⅰ(n=33) and group Ⅱ(n=33)according to the coin tossing.In group Ⅰ, locking plate was used, while in group Ⅱ, anatomical plate was used.The total therapeutic effectiveness rate, and surgical indicators were compared between the two groups. Results The total therapeutic effectiveness rate in group Ⅰwas higher than that in group Ⅱ, and the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05).There was no significant difference in the operation time between the two groups (P＞0.05).The hospital stay and fracture healing time in group Ⅰwere shorter than those in group Ⅱ (P＜0.05).The intraoperative blood loss in group Ⅰwas less than that in group Ⅱ, and the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05).The scores of mental state, activity ability and daily life of group Ⅱwere higher than those of group Ⅰ, and the differences were statistically significant (P＜0.05). Conclusion Compared with the anatomical plate, the locking plate is more effective for the treatment of distal femoral fractures.The surgical trauma is milder and the hospital stay is much shorter, which is conducive to rapid recovery after surgery.

Key words： Locking plate Anatomical plate Distal femoral fracture Operation time Bleeding volume

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	LI Zheng-nan
	WANG Yi-hai
	YANG Kang-hua
	CHEN Jian-ping
	CAI Xing-jian
	ZHU Dao-xin
	XIAO Shi-liang

Cite this article:

LI Zheng-nan,WANG Yi-hai,YANG Kang-hua, et al. Effect comparison of locking plate and anatomical plate in the treatment of distal femoral fractures[J]. 中国当代医药, 2020, 27(15): 106-108.

URL:

http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/ OR http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/Y2020/V27/I15/106

[1]	王金秀.锁定钢板与解剖型钢板治疗股骨远端骨折疗效及护理方法分析[J].基层医学论坛，2017，21（30）：4150-4151.
[2]	郭志民，陈卫，石玲玲，等.锁定钢板联合内侧异体骨板内固定治疗老年骨质疏松性股骨远端骨折[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志，2018，33（6）：612-613.
[3]	王伟，梁宏伟，左进步，余磊.锁定解剖钢板治疗老年股骨远端骨折54 例[J].实用医药杂志，2017，34（4）：335-337.
[4]	章铁琦，陈金洪，王勇，等.重建锁定钢板联合微创内固定系统治疗复杂股骨远端骨折[J].中医正骨，2017，29（12）：62-64.
[5]	陈基施展，沈浩，王伟，等.不同接骨板组合治疗干骺端粉碎股骨远端骨折的动物实验[J].上海医学，2017，40（6）：348-358.
[6]	冯佳男，张文化，雷洋.后外侧入路锁定加压钢板治疗股骨远端骨折的临床研究[J].中国医药指南，2017，15（6）：146-147.
[7]	杨涛，兰颖华，常国荣，等.股骨远端解剖型钢板加长螺钉治疗股骨下端骨折的临床效果分析[J].中国当代医药，2017，24（4）：102-105.
[8]	曹磊，章筛林.内、外侧双钢板内固定治疗股骨远端C3 型骨折的临床疗效[J].临床骨科杂志，2017，20（5）：611-613.
[9]	吴斌，陈斌，郑松.外侧解剖锁定板结合内侧重建板内固定治疗股骨远端干骺端粉碎性骨折的疗效分析[J].浙江创伤外科，2017，22（2）：334-336.
[10]	卢耀开，王锡雄.锁定钢板治疗股骨近端骨折的临床体会[J].微创医学，2016，11（4）：628-629.
[11]	王孝纯.锁定钢板与解剖钢板内固定治疗pilon 骨折的临床效果对比研究[J].现代诊断与治疗，2016，27（9）：1720-1721.
[12]	郭九生.锁定钢板与逆行髓内钉对股骨远端骨折的临床效果研究[J].中国当代医药，2016，23（25）：85-87.
[13]	余德涛，王雷.L 型角钢板、AO 动力髁螺钉及解剖型髁支持钢板治疗老年股骨远端骨折的临床疗效比较[J].国际老年医学杂志，2017，38（5）：223-226.
[14]	朱鹤远.微创稳定系统与股骨髁支撑钢板治疗老年股骨远端骨折的临床效果比较[J].临床合理用药杂志，2016，9（23）：124-125.
[15]	刘俊.逆行髓内钉与锁定钢板治疗股骨远端骨折的疗效比较分析[J].世界临床医学，2017，11（2）：45，50.