前侧入路MIPPO技术与髓内钉内固定治疗肱骨干骨折的疗效比较

目的比较前侧入路微创经皮钢板内固定技术(MIPPO)与髓内钉内固定治疗肱骨干骨折的临床效果。方法回顾性分析自2009-05—2013-08分别采用MIPPO技术、顺行髓内钉内固定与逆行髓内钉内固定治疗的肱骨干骨折54例,MIPPO组21例,顺行髓内钉组18例,逆行髓内钉组15例。比较3组手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合情况、功能恢复情况、术后并发症。结果 3组术中出血量(F=72.040,P0.001)、骨折愈合时间(F=9.351,P0.001)比较差异无统计学意义,但MIPPO组手术时间较顺行髓内钉组和逆行髓内钉组短,差异有统计学意义(F=84.783,P=0.058)。54例均获得平均18.9(11~39)个月随访。MIPPO组疗效优良率明显高于顺行髓内钉组和逆行髓内钉组,并发症发生率明显低于顺行髓内钉组和逆行髓内钉组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论采用前侧入路MIPPO技术治疗肱骨干骨折避免了传统切开复位钢板内固定的缺点,也避免了髓内钉内固定术后的并发症,而且操作简单,学习曲线较短。     

接骨板螺钉与髓内钉固定在肱骨干骨折中的应用

目的比较接骨板螺钉与髓内钉固定对闭合性肱骨干骨折的治疗效果。方法 2004年1月至2008年12月,86例闭合性肱骨干骨折患者分别采取接骨板螺钉与髓内钉手术内固定治疗。接骨板螺钉组48例（男31例,女17例）,平均年龄35.6岁（17～65岁）,骨折分型采用AO分型：A型22例,B型16例,C型10例。髓内钉组38例（男26例,女12例）,其中1例为双侧肱骨干骨折,平均年龄32.5岁（22～56岁）,A型15例,B型17例,C型6例。比较两组手术时间、手术出血量、骨折愈合时间、肩关节功能和并发症情况,进行回顾性分析。结果髓内钉组在手术时间与出血量上皆明显少于接骨板螺钉组,两者具有明显差异。而在骨折愈合时间、肩关节功能方面无统计学差异。接骨板螺钉组出现骨折不愈合而内固定失效1例。两组出现术中桡神经损伤各1例,皆经保守治疗后神经功能完全恢复。结论接骨板螺钉与髓内钉固定的治疗效果并无明显差异。解剖锁定接骨板髓外固定的适应证扩大至肱骨远近端近关节处骨折。治疗效果更多取决于术者的经验、手术条件和骨折类型。     

肱骨干骨折顺行与逆行髓内针固定的病例 对照研究

目的：比较肱骨干骨折顺行与逆行髓内针固定的疗效。方法：入选1999年3月至2006年10月间有完整随访资料的肱骨干骨折105例,分为顺行髓内针组（A组）82例,逆行髓内针组（B组）23例。对两组的手术时间、术中出血量、并发症发生率、骨折愈合时间、骨折愈合率、Constant—Murley肩关节功能评分和Mayo肘关节功能评分等指标进行比较。结果：随访时间平均（31．2±20．9）个月。两组的手术时间、骨折愈合时间、愈合率及并发症发生率比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。B组术中出血量大于A组（P=0．002）。A组有4例（4．9％）不愈合,8例（9．8％）发生肩痛伴肩关节活动度减小,B组3例（13．0％）术中发生医源性骨折。A组肩关节功能评分低于B组（P=0．04）,肘关节功能评分两组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论：顺行与逆行髓内针固定均是治疗肱骨干骨折的有效方法,但逆行髓内针固定医源性骨折发生率较高,应正确选择和制备髓内针入点。顺行髓内针固定有较高的肩痛和肩关节活动度减小的并发症发生率,注意将髓内针尾埋于肩袖下方,细致保护和修复肩袖,术后进行合理的康复练习,有利于减少肩痛和改善肩关节功能。     

Dislocation of the shoulder joint with ipsilateral humeral shaft fracture: two case reports

Introduction: A combination of the shaft fracture of the humerus with shoulder dislocation is a rarely documented injury. Moreover, few reports describe a long-term outcome after a follow-up period over 10 years. The present article is the first report of long-term clinical results obtained with this combined injury. Materials and methods: We present two cases of the dislocation of the shoulder joint with ipsilateral humeral shaft fracture. One is an anterior dislocation and the other is posterior. The anterior dislocation was closely reduced on the date of injury, but the posterior dislocation required open reduction 6 weeks after the injury because it was missed at the initial diagnosis and identified 4 weeks after the injury. In the latter case, shoulder pain and limitation of the motion persisting after the first surgery had to be treated by anterior acromioplasty and arthrolysis of the shoulder. In both cases, the humeral fracture was fixed by retrograde intramedullary nailing using a Küntscher nail and successful bone union was achieved. Results: At over 10-year follow-up examination, both patients had no limitation in activities of daily living and no restrictions to their normal occupation. The radiographs of the shoulder joint demonstrated good clinical results, with no degenerative change or osteonecrosis. Conclusion: We have experienced two cases of dislocation of the shoulder joint with ipsilateral humeral shaft fracture and reported long-term results over 10 years. Good clinical results were demonstrated in both cases.     

逆行交锁髓内钉治疗肱骨骨折

我科2001年1月-2002年12月采用带锁髓内钉逆行穿钉的方法治疗肱骨干骨折23例，疗效满意。     

Functional long-term outcome of the shoulder after antegrade intramedullary nailing in humeral diaphyseal fractures

Intramedullary nailing is one of the most commonly used surgical treatments for humeral diaphyseal fractures. Once an intramedullary fixation technique has been selected, the choice between antegrade or retrograde approach remains controversial. Forty patients with humeral diaphyseal fracture treated with Seidel antegrade intramedullary nailing through an "danterior deltoid incision" (ADI) were evaluated after an average period of 62 months. Clinical and functional evaluation of the shoulder was performed using the Constant Score. Results were excellent in 33 patients, good in 5 and acceptable in 2. Radiological assessment was performed using antero-posterior (AP) and latero-lateral (LL) radiographs of the humerus and AP and Neer radiographs of the shoulder. Radiographic findings demonstrated good consolidation of all fractures; nail and locking proximal screw malpositioning were detected in 2 cases (2 patients with acceptable results). The positive results obtained for shoulder function correlate with patient age and demonstrate that antegrade intramedullary nailing is a valid option for the treatment of humeral diaphyseal fractures, as long as it is performed through ADI access and with the appropriate surgical technique. Surgical technical errors will lead to functional problems of the shoulder, which in some cases will not be completely eliminated even after nail removal.     

自锁髓内钉在治疗肱骨干骨折中的应用

目的探讨肱骨自锁髓内钉治疗肱骨干骨折的疗效。方法对我院于2002年1月-2007年10月收治52例肱骨干骨折采用肱骨自锁髓内钉治疗进行回顾性分析。本组病例中新鲜骨折46例,骨不连6例。结果本组病例平均随访14个月,50例骨折愈合,骨折愈合率96％,骨折愈合时间为3～7个月,平均4个月。2例骨不愈合经第二次手术植骨愈合。肩肘关节功能：优39例,良12例,差1例（肩部疼痛、肩关节僵硬）,肩肘关节功能优良率98。结论肱骨自锁髓内钉手术操作简便,创伤小,固定可靠,允许早期功能锻炼,并发症少,疗效的满意率高,可有效治疗肱骨干骨折,尤其适合多段骨折．粉碎性骨折和骨折不愈合。     

肱骨交锁髓内钉治疗陈旧性肱骨干骨折骨不连

肱骨干骨折愈合延迟和骨不连的发生率较高,研究发现肱骨干骨折内固定术后发生骨不愈合率可达3·6%[1]。我院自2002年6月-2005年4月采用Smith+Nephew施乐辉公司的肱骨Russell-Taylor交锁髓内钉治疗肱骨干骨折骨不连39例,并对其临床疗效和并发症进行分析。1临床资料本组39例,男21例,女18例;年龄19⁶6岁,平均37·8岁;闭合性骨折34例,开放性骨折5例。致伤原因:交通伤23例,砸伤11例,摔伤5例。39例均为陈旧性骨折,内固定手术后8¹5周骨折无愈合迹象,平均12·6周。本组所采用交锁髓内钉直径7⁹mm,长度为180²60mm。2手术方法臂丛麻醉下,患者     

肱骨交锁髓内钉治疗陈旧性肱骨干骨折骨不连

肱骨干骨折愈合延迟和骨不连的发生率较高,研究发现肱骨干骨折内固定术后发生骨不愈合率可达3·6%[1]。我院自2002年6月-2005年4月采用Smith Nephew施乐辉公司的肱骨Russell-Taylor交锁髓内钉治疗肱骨干骨折骨不连39例,并对其临床疗效和并发症进行分析。1临床资料本组39例,男21     

交锁髓内钉治疗肱骨骨折术后并发症的临床分析

过去对于肱骨髓内钉并发症的报道较多[1],但对其并发症产生原因研究却较少。为此,我们对2001年1月-2004年6月68例在我院使用肱骨交锁髓内钉治疗的患者进行了并发症的初步研究,目的在于了解产生并发症的可能原因及提出相应的预防对策。1临床资料1·1一般资料本组68例,男40例,女2     

交锁髓内钉治疗肱骨骨折术后并发症的临床分析

过去对于肱骨髓内钉并发症的报道较多[1],但对其并发症产生原因研究却较少。为此,我们对2001年1月-2004年6月68例在我院使用肱骨交锁髓内钉治疗的患者进行了并发症的初步研究,目的在于了解产生并发症的可能原因及提出相应的预防对策。1临床资料1·1一般资料本组68例,男40例,女28例;平均年龄36·8岁（18⁵6岁）。其中56例为外伤性肱骨骨折,12例为肱骨骨不连。外伤性肱骨骨折患者中,48例为闭合性骨折,其余为开放性骨折（GustiloⅠ型5例,Ⅱ型2例,ⅢA型1例）。骨不连患者中,10例曾有手术史。4例外伤性骨折患者及1例骨不连患者存在桡神经麻痹。1·2手术指征手法复位不满意、多于两     

Five years' clinical experience with the unreamed humeral nail in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures

With the development of interlocking nail systems especially designed for the upper arm, standards for the operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures have appeared to change. The trumpet-like shape of the medullary cavity does not allow stable splinting with a nail alone, and therefore the bone--nail complex is commonly stabilized with interlocking bolts. Between June 1996 and June 2001, 51 fractures of the humeral shaft were treated operatively at the BG Unfallklinik Ludwigshafen with the unreamed humeral nail (UHN; Synthes). All nails were inserted by the retrograde technique. Ninety-five percent of the patients showed excellent or good shoulder function at follow-up examinations. For elbow function, 91.4% of the patients showed excellent or good results. Three out of four patients with poor elbow function had suffered from an additional injury to the brachial plexus; one patient developed heterotopic ossification. Intraoperative complications were: one iatrogenic lesion of the radial nerve, two intraoperative shaft fractures, one split at the insertion point, and one supracondylar fracture. As implants we used 7.5 mm nails in 36 cases and 6.7 mm nails in 15 cases. Among the 47 patients undergoing follow-up examinations, we found two cases of non-union. All patients were pain-free. Thirty-seven patients were very satisfied, six satisfied and four dissatisfied with the therapy. Decisive criteria for the use of a new implant are a high safety standard and simple reproducibility; these appear to be fulfilled by retrograde nailing of humeral fractures with the UHN. Interlocking nailing with the UHN enriches the range of therapeutic options for humeral shaft fractures.     

External fixation versus locked intramedullary nailing in tibial shaft fractures: a prospective,randomised study of 78 patients

Introduction We performed a prospective, randomised study to compare the Ex-fi-re external fixator (EF) with locked intramedullary (IM) nailing in tibial fractures. Only fractures without soft-tissue problems of importance were included.Materials and methods Ex-fi-re is a unilateral, dynamic axial fixator with fracture reduction capabilities. The Grosse-Kempf nail was used for nailing. A total of 78 patients with 79 fractures were entered in the study (41 Ex-fi-re, 38 IM nails).Results Time to radiographic union and full weight-bearing did not differ significantly, but unprotected weight-bearing was achieved earlier in the IM group (12 vs 20 weeks; p<0.001). There were more reoperations due to secondary dislocation in the EF group. There were no differences in final angulation or shortening. After 6 months and 1 year there were no differences in knee motion, ankle motion, fracture site pain or ankle pain. Some 64% of the nailed patients complained of anterior knee pain after 1 year.Conclusion The results were comparable in most respects. Unprotected weight-bearing was achieved earlier after IM nailing. Anterior knee pain was frequent after nailing.     

逆行性可膨胀髓内钉治疗肱骨干骨折的临床应用

肱骨干骨折是临床常见的一种骨折类型,约占全身骨折的1．31％。肱骨干骨折的保守治疗已取得了满意的疗效,但随着内固定物材料的发展以及手术操作的日益完善,采用手术方法治疗肱骨干骨折已得到广泛认可。尤其对于多发骨折、开放骨折、脊髓损伤（高位截瘫）或臂丛损伤、骨折伴有神经血管损伤、漂浮肘和闭合复位不满意的患者,手术治疗已经成为首选的治疗方法。白2005年9月至2007年10月,     

肱骨逆行带锁髓内钉治疗肱骨干骨折体会

目的 用逆行带锁髓内钉治疗肱骨干骨折.方法 我院采用肱骨逆行带锁髓内钉治疗肱骨干骨折26例,男15例,女11例;年龄19～56岁,平均年龄32岁.结果 骨折固定满意,未发生桡神经损伤.结论 用逆行带锁髓内钉治疗肱骨干骨折,可有效避免医源性桡神经损伤,值得推广.     

Femoral shaft fracture callus formation after intramedullary nailing: a comparison of interlocking and Ender nailing

 Intramedullary nailing is widely used for the operative treatment of femoral fractures. Recently, the biologic healing of fractures has become better understood from fundamental investigations. However, there has been no clinical comparison between the fracture healing process with these two fixation methods. The purpose of this study was to use radiographs to compare callus formation with two types of intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft fractures: reamed interlocking (IL) nails and Ender nails. Femoral shaft type A fractures (AO classification) were studied. Twenty-seven fractures were treated with reamed IL nailing, and 81 fractures were treated with Ender nailing. The callus area was calculated from the maximum cross-sectional area on the anteroposterior and lateral radiographs. The callus appeared at a mean of 3.9 weeks after surgery in the IL group, and at a mean of 2.8 weeks in the Ender group (P < 0.05). In the IL and Ender groups, fracture healing was noted at a mean of 3.4 and 2.0 months, respectively. The mean area of callus formation in the IL and Ender nailing groups was 439.5 mm² and 699.4 mm², respectively (P < 0.02). Ender nailing results in abundant callus, which forms at an earlier stage after the procedure than in patients treated with IL nailing. Dynamization at the fracture site is reported to increase external callus formation. Our results indicate that the elasticity of the fixation obtained with Ender nailing promotes callus formation. Received: November 9, 2001 / Accepted: February 13, 2002     

顺行交锁髓内治疗肱骨干骨折不愈合

目的 评价顺行交锁髓内钉治疗肱骨干骨折不愈合的临床效果。方法 对13例肱骨干骨折不愈合采用自体髂骨移植,顺行Russell-Rayler交锁髓内钉治疗。术后行X线片检查和肩关节功能评估。结果 平均随访18个月（14－25个月）,13例均获骨愈合,平均愈合时间4．3个月（3－7个月）。肩关节功能：优9例,良3例,一般1例。肩关节功能完全恢复9例,3例有来自近端交锁螺钉的肩关节撞击症状。结论 对肱骨干骨折不愈合可采用顺行交锁髓内钉治疗;为促进骨愈合,骨端加压和骨移植是必要的。     

Comparison of dynamic versus static fixation of intramedullary nailing in tibial diaphyseal fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionTibial fractures are common long bone injuries, often surgically fixed with intramedullary nails. Modern intramedullary tibial nails allow for two different fixation modes, namely static and dynamic modes. While studies have demonstrated benefits of using either fixation modes, there has been no consensus as to which fixation mode would produce better outcomes and less complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of dynamic versus static fixation of intramedullary nails in the operative fixation of tibial diaphyseal fractures.MethodsA meta-analysis was conducted with a multi-database search (PubMed, OVID, EMBASE, Medline) according to PRISMA guidelines on April 15, 2021. Data from all published literature meeting inclusion criteria were extracted and analysed with fixed- and random-effects models.Findings/results: A total of 478 statically fixed and 234 dynamically fixed patients were included in this meta-analysis. Dynamically fixed patients had a significantly shorter mean time to union (mean difference, MD = 5.18 weeks, 95%CI: 1.95–8.41 weeks, p = 0.002) and reoperation rates (OR = 0.21, 95%CI: 0.10–0.47, p < 0.001) than statically fixed patients. No significant difference was found between both groups in terms of malrotation (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.07–4.41, p = 0.59), non-union (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.24–5.05, p = 0.91), delayed union (OR = 1.15, 95%CI: 0.19–7.17, p = 0.88) and malunion (OR = 2.73, 95% CI: 0.29–25.26, p = 0.38).ConclusionWhile acknowledging that there is widespread surgeon preference to dyanamise or statically fix intramedullary nails in certain tibial fracture configurations, primary dynamic fixation of intramedullary tibial nails demonstrated significantly shorter times to bony union and less complications than static nailing in our meta-analysis. Further research on identifying patient factors and fracture patterns that would best benefit from dynamic fixation is required.     

逆行和顺行置髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折的疗效比较

目的比较逆行和顺行置髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折的临床疗效。方法将57例股骨干骨折患者按置钉方式的不同分为对照组(经大转子顺行置髓内钉治疗,25例)和观察组(经股骨髁逆行置髓内钉治疗,32例)。比较两组术中透视次数、手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合时间、术后6个月Harris评分。结果患者均获得随访,时间7~12个月。手术时间、术中出血量观察组明显短(少)于对照组(P<0.05);术中透视次数、骨折愈合时间以及术后6个月Harris评分两组比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论逆行和顺行置髓内钉治疗股骨干骨折均能取得满意的临床疗效,但逆行置髓内钉具有手术操作简单、无需使用牵引床、手术时间短、术中出血量少等优点,更利于基层医院使用。     

Bridging plate osteosynthesis of humeral shaft fractures

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medical Sciences and developed during November 2000 and July 2001 in the Orthopedic and Traumatology Department of UNICAMP. There were 15 patients, 11 males, age between 14 and 66 years. All fractures were unilateral. Of the 15 patients eight were polytraumatised, two of them had open fractures. The others had an isolated fracture of the humerus, of which one was open. None of the patients had previous lesions of the radial nerve, but in two patients there was a lesion of the brachial plexus. All of the patients underwent a bridging plate osteosynthesis of the humeral shaft fractures using only two small incisions proximal and distal to the fracture site. We used broad or narrow D.C.P.^® plates for large fragments mostly with 12 holes, fixed with two or three screws at each end. All cases united with an average time of 8-12 weeks, with the exception of one case with a grade III open fracture and a brachial plexus lesion on the same side. We had no major complications. All patients recovered good function of the limb without significant residual deformity.