
浏览全部资源
扫码关注微信
纸质出版:2014
移动端阅览
范志航,王子明,杜全印,熊雁,高云,王爱民.桡骨头切除与置换治疗难修复性桡骨头损伤的对比研究[J].陆军军医大学学报(原第三军医大学学报),2014,36(09):950-954.
Fan Zhihang,Wang Ziming,Du Quanyin,Xiong Yan,Gao Yun,Wang Aimin.Radial head resection vs prosthesis replacement in treatment of irreparable radial head fractures[J].J Amry Med Univ (J Third Mil Med Univ),2014,36(09):950-954.
范志航,王子明,杜全印,熊雁,高云,王爱民.桡骨头切除与置换治疗难修复性桡骨头损伤的对比研究[J].陆军军医大学学报(原第三军医大学学报),2014,36(09):950-954. DOI:
Fan Zhihang,Wang Ziming,Du Quanyin,Xiong Yan,Gao Yun,Wang Aimin.Radial head resection vs prosthesis replacement in treatment of irreparable radial head fractures[J].J Amry Med Univ (J Third Mil Med Univ),2014,36(09):950-954. DOI:
目的 比较在治疗难修复性桡骨头损伤中切除术与置换术的临床效果。 方法 筛选2000年6月至2013年8月我院77例(77肘)分别行桡骨头切除或桡骨头置换患者,经筛选后纳入本次研究并有效随访56例(56肘),分为切除组35例,置换组21例。最后1次随访从影像学表现、肘关节活动度、肘关节HSS功能评分、臂肩肘失能(disabilities of the arm
shoulder and hand
DASH)问卷表、视觉模拟疼痛评分(visual analogous scale
VAS)进行效果评价。 结果 切除组与置换组平均随访时间分别为72(14~156)、38(7~100)个月。置换组无脱位、感染、松动病例,2例异位骨化生成;切除组3例异位骨化生成。HSS评分:切除组(85.4±7.5)分,置换组(91.3±5.6)分,2组差异有统计学意义(
P
0.05);DASH评分:切除组(16.5±5.1)分,置换组(13.6±6.2)分,2组差异无统计学意义(
P
0.05)。肘关节活动度:伸直缺失-屈曲,切除组3°~132°,置换组5°~131°;旋前-旋后,切除组74°~71°,置换组81°~82°,差异有统计学意义(
P
0.05);同健侧相比提携角改变:切除组增加(6.30±2.36)°,置换组增加(1.72±1.03)°,差异有统计学意义(
P
0.05);置换组腕关节疼痛评分较切除组低。 结论 桡骨头粉碎性骨折或陈旧性损伤导致无法修复时应优先考虑行桡骨头置换以保证肘关节的稳定及功能的完整。
Objective To compare the clinical outcome of radial head resection with radial head prosthesis replacement in the treatment of irreparable radial head fractures. Methods Clinical date of 77 radial head fractures cases (77 elbows) receiving radial head excision and radial prosthesis in our department from June 2000 to August 2013 were collected and retrospectively an
alyzed. Finally
only 56 cases were identified and followed up effectively
including the resection group (n=35) and the replacement group (n=21). The last follow-up were assessed in regard of radiographic findings
range of motion
Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) functional rating scores
the Disabilities of the Arm
Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire and visual analogous scale (VAS) of pain. Results The average time of follow-up was 72 months (ranging from 14 to 156) for the resection group
and was 38 months (ranging from 7 to 100) in the replacement group. No dislocation
infection
or loosening was seen in the replacement group
but 2 cases of heterotopic ossification was found
while 3 cases of heterotopic ossification were founded in the resection group. Significant difference was seen in the HSS functional rating score between the resection and replacement groups (85.4±7.5 vs 91.3±5.6 points
P
0.05)
but not seen in the score of DASH (16.5±5.1 vs 13.6±6.2
P
0.05). Elbow motion averaged 3°(extension loss) to 132°(flexion) in the resection group
and 5° to 131° in the replacement group
while pronation-supination of the forearm averaged 74° to 71° in the former group
and 81° to 82° in the later (
P
0.05). In comparison with the value for the contra-lateral limb
the average increase in the carrying angle was (6.30±2.36)° in the resection group and (1.72±1.03)° in the other group with significant difference between them (
P
0.05). The VAS scale was lower in the replacement than the other group. Conclusion Radial head replacement is an optimal approach for postoperative patients with irreparable radial head fractures due to comminuted fracture or old injury to maintain the stability and function of elbow joint.
0
浏览量
0
下载量
0
CSCD
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
京公网安备11010802024621