肱骨干中段骨折前外侧和后侧手术入路的临床效果比较

目的 采用双中心回顾性研究分析并比较前外侧与后侧手术入路在治疗肱骨干中段骨折的临床效果和并发症.方法 本研究纳入了2015年1月至2019年7月期间在首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院骨科和首都医科大学附属北京潞河医院骨科两家医院诊断为肱骨干中段骨折并接受手术治疗的177例患者.在随访期间,每例患者均拍摄了X线片以进行评估....     

后侧入路微创治疗肱骨中远段骨折合并桡神经损伤

目的 评价采用后侧入路微创治疗肱骨中远段骨折合并桡神经损伤的临床疗效.方法 对肱骨中远段骨折15例采用后路小切口探查桡神经,后路锁定钢板固定.结果 本组获随访3～6个月,骨折均获骨性愈合,桡神经均得以恢复.患肩关节UCLA评分与健侧对比,术后6个月差异无明显统计学意义(P=0.14),肘关节Mayo评分则低于健侧,差异有统计学意义(P=0.01).结论 对于合并桡神经损伤的肱骨干中远段骨折,采用后路锁定钢板固定可取得良好疗效.     

肱骨后侧切口、外侧肌间隔入路内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折的临床疗效

目的探讨后侧切口、外侧肌间隔入路内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折的临床疗效。 方法对2013年5月至2015年5月成都第一骨科医院收治的44例采用切开复位钢板螺钉内固定术治疗的闭合性肱骨中下段骨折患者进行回顾性分析,其中25例患者采用肱骨后侧切口、外侧肌间隔入路（后侧入路组）,19例患者采用前外侧入路（前外侧入路组）。44例患者均获得随访,平均随访时间12个月。两组患者围手术期处理情况相同,对比分析两组之间的手术时间、术中出血量、桡神经损伤情况、骨折愈合情况及肘关节功能恢复情况。 结果后侧入路组手术时间为（65.18±3.50）min,前外侧入路组手术时间为（85.73±6.16）min,后侧入路组术中出血量为（222.95±44.55）ml,前外侧入路组为（281.34±34.82）ml,经统计学检验两组间差异具有统计学意义（P <0.05）。两组术后桡神经损伤情况、骨折愈合时间及肘关节Broberg和Morrey评分基本相当,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。两组患者骨折均在1年内愈合,前外侧入路组1例桡神经损伤患者在术后3个月内恢复。 结论对肱骨中下段骨折采用肱骨后侧切口、外侧肌间隔入路手术治疗,可操作性强,手术时间短,术中出血量较少,手术安全性高,肱骨后侧骨骼平坦,利于放置钢板,无须特别塑形钢板,不影响肘关节功能,推荐在临床上使用后侧切口、外侧肌间隔入路的方式治疗肱骨中下段骨折。     

后侧入路治疗上臂近段桡神经损伤

上臂桡神经损伤常规采用外侧入路,显露及修复桡神经均很方便。对于少数桡神经在肱骨后方的损伤,外侧入路往往不便于桡神经的缝合操作。我们于1991年2月～1999年5月采用后侧入路治疗桡神经在肱骨后方的损伤7例,现报道如下。1资料与方法1.1一般资料本组7例均为男性,年龄18～35岁,     

内、外侧入路治疗肱骨干中下段骨折的疗效比较

目的比较内侧入路和外侧入路钢板内固定治疗肱骨干中下段骨折的临床疗效。方法选择2008年1月至2013年1月收治的78例肱骨干中下段骨折患者,其中42例行内侧入路钢板内固定,36例行外侧入路钢板内固定。观察和比较两组患者的手术时间、切口长度、出血量、平均住院时间、并发症的发生率和临床疗效。结果内侧入路和外侧入路钢板内固定治疗肱骨干中下段骨折的临床疗效无显著性差异(P0.05),但内侧入路可减少桡神经损伤的风险。结论内侧入路和外侧入路治疗肱骨干中下段骨折可获得相当的临床效果,但内侧入路组切口隐蔽,减少了桡神经损伤的风险。     

改良前外侧入路治疗胫骨平台后外侧骨折的疗效

目的探讨改良前外侧入路治疗胫骨平台后外侧骨折的疗效。方法将112例胫骨平台后外侧骨折患者按照手术入路不同分为观察组(采用改良前外侧入路内固定治疗,56例)和对照组(采用后外侧入路内固定治疗,56例)。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、切口愈合时间、骨折愈合时间、负重下地活动时间、膝关节屈曲活动度、膝关节功能和本体感觉恢复。结果两组患者均获得随访,时间12～36(15. 38±4. 37)个月。手术时间、术中出血量、切口愈合时间、骨折愈合时间和负重下地活动时间观察组明显短(少)于对照组(P 0. 01),膝关节屈曲活动度观察组大于对照组(P 0. 01)。术后6个月,HSS评分及膝关节30°、45°、60°时主动复位绝对误差角度两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P 0. 05)。术后12个月,两组HSS评分较术后6个月明显升高(P 0. 01),膝关节30°、45°、60°时主动复位绝对误差角度较术后6个月明显降低(P 0. 01),观察组的升高或者降低水平较对照组更加明显(P 0. 01)。观察组膝关节功能恢复优良率为94. 64%,明显高于对照组的78. 57%(P 0. 05)。观察组的并发症发生率为5. 36%,明显低于对照组的19. 64%(P 0. 05)。结论改良前外侧入路治疗胫骨平台后外侧骨折的疗效优于后外侧入路,具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少、对膝关节功能影响小等优势。     

改良不显露桡神经肱骨外侧入路微创钢板内固定治疗肱骨干中下段骨折

目的 比较改良不显露桡神经肱骨外侧入路微创钢板内固定与常规肱骨切开复位钢板内固定治疗肱骨干中下段骨折的临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析自2014-06-2018-03诊治的89例肱骨干中下段骨折,44例采用改良不显露桡神经肱骨外侧入路微创钢板内固定治疗(观察组),45例采用常规肱骨切开复位钢板内固定治疗(对照组),比较2组手...     

经后外侧入路治疗肱骨干中下段骨折

目的探讨经后外侧入路治疗肱骨干中下段骨折的临床疗效。方法回顾分析经后外侧入路治疗并获得随访的20例肱骨干中下段骨折,均经后外侧入路切开复位钢板螺钉内固定,伴桡神经损伤者同时探查桡神经,观察术中术后并发症和骨折愈合情况。结果手术时间平均83min（60-120rain）,失血量平均130mL（90-240mL）,随访7-28个月,平均15．3个月,术后无感染、内固定失败及肘关节异位骨化,骨折不愈合1例。术后随访时肩肘关节功能良好。结论经后外侧人路治疗肱骨干中下段骨折,简单,安全,有效,显露清楚,有利于钢板妥善固定。     

上臂后侧入路治疗肱骨干下2/3骨折17例报告

肱骨干中下部骨折手术内固定 ,传统手术入路多采用上臂外侧、前外侧切口 ,因过度牵拉造成桡神经麻痹、损伤 ,内固定不牢靠造成骨折不愈合等并发症临床并不少见 ,自 1998年～ 2 0 0 0年 3年间 ,我们采用上臂后侧入路 ( Henry1966)治疗肱骨干下 2 / 3骨折 ,取得了较满意的疗效。总结报告如下 :临床资料一、一般资料　本组 17例 ,男 11例 ,女 6例 ,年龄 17～61岁 ,平均 3 2 .4岁 ,左侧 10例 ,右侧 7例。致伤原因 :车祸伤9例 ,跌伤 8例。骨折类型 :粉碎骨折 11例 ,多段骨折 2例 ,螺旋骨折 3例 ,开放骨折 1例 ,伴桡神经损伤 7例 ,伤后手术时间 :…     

前外侧入路与前侧入路前内侧接骨板内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折的疗效比较

目的比较前外侧入路与前侧入路前内侧接骨板内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折的临床疗效及并发症发生率。方法回顾性分析自2010-01—2013-10诊治的56例肱骨中下段骨折的临床资料,其中Ⅰ组30例采用前外侧入路内固定,Ⅱ组26例采用前侧入路前内侧固定。结果Ⅰ组获得随访12~22(15.63±2.62)个月,Ⅱ组获得随访12~22(16.22±2.88)个月。2组在手术时间、术中出血量方面的差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。Ⅰ组骨折愈合时间10~18(14.87±2.32)周,肘关节最大屈曲范围134°~146°(138.60±3.27)°,肘关节最大伸直范围0°~8°(4.87±1.91)°,Mayo肘关节功能评分(MEPS评分)70~100(88.04±7.72)分,Neer肩关节功能评分75~100(89.13±4.32)分。Ⅱ组骨折愈合时间10~19(15.06±2.22)周,肘关节最大屈曲范围130°~145°(137.95±4.15)°,肘关节最大伸直范围0°~9°(5.15±2.33)°,MEPS评分70~100(85.15±7.66)分,Neer肩关节功能评分75~100(88.54±2.30)分。2组在骨折愈合时间、肘关节最大屈伸范围及MEPS、Neer肩关节功能评分方面差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。Ⅱ组并发症发生率低于I组,差异有统计学意义(P=0.04)。结论前外侧入路与前侧入路前内侧固定均能有效治疗肱骨中下段骨折,但后者术中出血量及手术时间均较短,且并发症发生率更低。     

两种方法治疗肱骨中下段骨折的疗效比较

目的比较经前外侧入路前外侧和前内侧钢板内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析45例肱骨中下段骨折患者完整的临床资料,应用经前外侧入路前外侧钢板内固定治疗的21例为Ⅰ组,应用经前外侧入路前内侧钢板内固定治疗的24例为Ⅱ组。比较两组术中出血量、手术时间、肘关节和肩关节功能、术后并发症。结果Ⅰ组随访12~24(17.45±2.75)个月,Ⅱ组随访12~24(17.23±2.63)个月。术中出血量、手术时间两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。骨折愈合时间两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后1年Mayo肘关节功能评分、Neer肩关节功能评分两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。并发症发生率Ⅰ组高于Ⅱ组(P<0.05)。结论经前外侧入路前外侧和前内侧钢板内固定治疗肱骨中下段骨折都能取得较好的临床效果,但经前外侧入路前内侧钢板内固定手术时间短,术中出血量少,并发症较少。     

Comparison of lateral and posterior surgical approach in management of extra-articular distal humeral shaft fractures

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare treatment results and complication rates between lateral and posterior approaches in surgical treatment of extra-articular distal humeral shaft fractures.

Material and methods

Between June 2008 and May 2012, a total of 68 patients with extra-articular distal humeral shaft fractures were treated by lateral and posterior approaches. Of the patients, 30 were operated by a lateral approach (group I) and 26 patients were operated by a posterior approach (group II). There was no statistical significance between the two groups in sex distribution, age, the mechanism of the injury, injured arms, AO/ASIF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Association for the Study of Internal Fixation) classification, and the time from injury to surgery (P > 0.05). Operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, hospitalisation, clinical outcomes, and complications were compared between the two groups. The elbow functional results were evaluated by the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS).

Results

All patients were followed up. The average of follow-up in group I was 15.53 ± 2.636 months (range, 12–22 months), and was 16.12 ± 2.889 months (range, 12–22 months) in group II. There was no significant difference in the operation time, intraoperative bleeding time, and hospitalisation between the two groups (P > 0.05). In group I, the mean time of bone union was 12.87 ± 1.852 weeks (range, 10–16 weeks), the mean degrees of elbow flexion was 139.20° ± 3.274° (range, 134–146°), the mean degrees of elbow extension was 4.77° ± 1.906° (range, 0–8°), and the mean points of MEPS was 87.00 ± 7.724 (range, 70–100 points). In group II, the mean time of bone union was 12.96 ± 2.218 weeks (range, 10–16 weeks), the mean degrees of elbow flexion was 137.85° ± 4.076° (range, 130–145°), the mean degrees of elbow extension was 5.15° ± 2.327° (range, 0–9°), and the mean points of MEPS was 86.15 ± 7.656 (range, 70–100 points). There was no significant difference in the bone union, range of elbow flexion, range of elbow extension and MEPS between the two groups (P > 0.05). The overall complication rate in group I was lower than that in group II (P = 0.041).

Conclusions

Both lateral and posterior surgical approaches acquired satisfied treatment results in the management of extra-articular distal humeral shaft fractures, and there was a lower complication rate using the lateral approach.     

Functional outcome following surgical treatment of intra-articular distal humeral fractures through a posterior approach

BACKGROUND: While surgical repair is considered the standard of care of displaced intra-articular distal humeral fractures, most investigators have assessed its results with use of surgeon-based and/or radiograph-based outcome measures. The purpose of our study was to determine the functional outcome of fixation of displaced intra-articular distal humeral fractures with use of a standardized evaluation methodology consisting of objective testing of muscle strength and use of patient-based questionnaires (both limb-specific and general health-status questionnaires). METHODS: We identified twenty-five patients (fourteen male and eleven female), with a mean age of forty-seven years, who had an isolated, closed, displaced, intercondylar, intra-articular fracture of the distal part of the humerus repaired operatively through a posterior approach and fixed with plates on both the medial and the lateral column. All patients returned for follow-up that included recording of a complete history, physical examination, radiographic examination, completion of both a limb-specific questionnaire (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH]) and a general health-status questionnaire (Short Form-36 [SF-36]), and objective muscle-strength testing. RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was thirty-seven months (range, eighteen to seventy-five months). The mean flexion contracture was 25 degrees (range, 5 to 65 degrees), and the mean arc of flexion-extension was 108 degrees (range, 55 to 140 degrees). Significant decreases in mean muscle strength compared with that on the normal side were seen in both elbow flexion measured at 90 degrees (74 percent of normal, p = 0.01) and elbow extension measured at 45 degrees (76 percent of normal, p = 0.01), 90 degrees (74 percent of normal, p = 0.01), and 120 degrees (75 percent of normal, p = 0.01). The mean DASH score was 20 points, indicating mild residual impairment. The SF-36 scores revealed minor but significant decreases in the role-physical and physical function scores (p = 0.01 and 0.03, respectively) but no alteration of the mental component or mean scores. Six patients (24 percent) had a reoperation; three of them had removal of prominent hardware used to fix the site of an olecranon osteotomy. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical repair of an intra-articular distal humeral fracture is an effective procedure that reliably maintains general health status as measured by patient-based questionnaires. Our study quantified a decrease in the range of motion and muscle strength of these patients, which may help to explain the mild residual physical impairment detected by the limb-specific outcome measures and physical function components of the general health-status measures.     

前外侧入路双钢板治疗肱骨干远端骨折

目的探讨前外侧入路双钢板治疗肱骨干远端骨折的临床疗效。方法采用前外侧入路、切开复位双钢板治疗25例肱骨干远端骨折患者。结果患者均获随访,时间12~24个月。25例骨折于术后5~7个月愈合。根据Mayo肘关节功能评分标准评估疗效:优24例,良1例。结论前外侧入路双钢板治疗肱骨干骨折,手术操作简单,固定牢靠,能早期进行肘关节功能锻炼,术后效果满意。     

后路单侧侧前方减压钛网重建结合椎弓根钉内固定治疗胸腰椎爆裂骨折

目的 探讨经后侧入路侧前方减压椎体前中柱钛网重建后路椎弓根内固定治疗胸腰椎重度爆裂骨折的安全性及疗效.方法 对28例胸腰椎爆裂骨折采用经后路单侧行椎体次全切除、椎体270°减压、钛网支撑植骨重建前中柱及椎弓根钉内固定.采用美国脊柱损伤学会(ASIA)分级进行神经功能评估,通过X线及CT片评估骨折复位、减压及骨融合情况.结果 手术均顺利完成,平均手术时间3.2 h;平均出血量1200ml.术后发生脑脊液漏2例,术后1例发生神经根牵拉伤.所有患者植骨融合,内固定无松动、断裂,椎体的高度、椎管容积无明显丢失.大部分患者神经功能有不同程度的恢复.结论 采用后路侧前方减压椎体重建短节段内固定治疗重度胸腰椎爆裂骨折具有创伤小、安全性高、减压彻底、脊柱三柱即刻稳定等优点,临床疗效满意.     

The surgical treatment of thoracic and lumbar fractures by posterior approach

A review of large case series, biomechanical studies and the development of surgical approaches and various types of instrumentation have led to different orientations in the surgical treatment of vertebral fractures. The authors present their experience in 67 cases treated by posterior approach using segmental fixation for the instability of the lesion and the possible association of neurologic deficit (Magerl A in 35 cases, B in 25, C in 7; Frankel A in 21 cases, B in 15, C in 9, D in 6). At a mean follow-up of 3 years, treatment by posterior approach allowed us to suitably treat most of the vertebral fractures observed with clinically satisfactory results, but without observing a definite correlation between neurologic recovery and quality of the reduction. The overall realignment of the spine with extension synthesis and adequate geometry and the development of good bone callus allowed us to obtained a stable spine, protecting consolidation of the fractured metamere.     

肩峰前外侧入路与胸大肌三角肌入路治疗肱骨近端Neer 2、3部分骨折的病例对照研究

目的：对比肩峰前外侧入路与胸大肌三角肌入路在肱骨近端Neer 2、3部分骨折手术治疗中的临床疗效.方法：回顾性分析2009年1月至2012年12月收治并获随访的49例肱骨近端Neer 2、3部分骨折患者的资料,其中肩峰前外侧入路组22例,男9例,女13例,平均年龄（63.2±7.6）岁;胸大肌三角肌入路组27例,男12例,女15例,平均年龄（62.9±7.0）岁.比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量与骨折愈合时间及术后并发症,术后3个月及1、2年时分别采用Constant-Murley评分和视觉模拟评分法（VAS）评定肩关节功能及患肩疼痛度.结果：所有患者术后获随访,时间24～41个月,平均34.5个月.肩峰前外侧入路组手术时间[（68.20±7.04） min]较胸大肌三角肌入路组[（75.81±13.70） min]短,术中出血量[（151.30±20.57） ml]少于胸大肌三角肌入路组[（242.10±37.25） ml],骨折愈合时间[（10.88±4.90）周]短于胸大肌三角肌入路组[（13.60±2.45）周].术后3个月,肩峰前外侧入路组Constant-Murley评分88.32±5.45,肩关节疼痛VAS评分0.41±0.63,均优于胸大肌三角肌入路组[（63.53±8.31）vs（1.65±1.02）].但术后1年及2年,两组Constant-Murley评分与肩关节疼痛VAS评分差异均无统计学意义.两组各有1例术后出现肱骨头高度丢失,胸大肌三角肌入路组另有l例肩峰下撞击、l例螺钉松动及2例骨折延迟愈合.两组均未发生腋神经损伤及肱骨头坏死和内固定断裂等并发症.结论：采用肩峰前外侧入路与胸大肌三角肌入路手术治疗肱骨近端Neer 2、3部分骨折最终均可获得满意的中期疗效,前者更具有创伤小、出血少、手术时间短、术后肩关节功能恢复及骨折愈合快等优点.     

Primary surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures

Primary internal fixation of acute humeral shaft fractures is only seldom indicated. Following the late results, indication and technique must be very strict. This is shown by the number of 37 cases in seven years and the very low complication rate.     

The surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures

This is a study of 84 patients with upper arm fractures who were treated by plate osteosynthesis. The indication was mandatory in 9 patients with open fractures, 23 patients with primary radial nerve palsy on admission, 5 patients with radial nerve palsy after the initial treatment, 22 patients with pseudarthrosis and 7 patients who were polytraumatised. The operation was also indicated in 15 patients, because of the form of the fracture, in 3 patients with brachial plexus lesion, in 3 patients because it involved both upper arms and in 3 patients with segmental fractures. The 4.5 DCP was used in all these cases. All the cases of pseudarthrosis progressed to achieve bony union after the operation. There was no incidence of postoperative pseudarthrosis. We did encounter two cases (2.4%) of radial nerve palsy that required exploration. All the preoperative primary and secondary cases of radial nerve palsy recovered postoperatively. After an average follow-up period of 2.4 years (1-10 years) 90% of the patients could be classified as having very good or good results.