肱骨近端骨折的手术治疗策略

目的探讨不同类型肱骨近端有移位骨折的最佳手术治疗方案。方法对肱骨近端骨折有移位的174例患者,进行Neer分类,122例二部分骨折和8例三部分骨折行三叶草钢板内固定,30例三部分骨折和3例四部分骨折行肱骨近端加压锁定钢板（10cking proximal hunerus plate,LPHP）内固定,而5例三部分骨折和6例四部分骨折行人工肱骨头置换术（humeral head replacement,HHR）。结果内固定术后所有骨折均愈合,无畸形。愈合时间为8—12周,平均10周。肱骨头置换术后,假体未出现松动、脱位等现象。所有病例均无感染、神经、血管损伤等并发症发生。结论对肱骨近端骨折采用手术治疗可取得较为满意的效果。Neer二部分骨折、多数三部分骨折及一些四部分骨折可采用钢板内固定,而部分三部分骨折、多数四部分骨折可根据情况一期行人工肱骨头置换术。     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

目的 根据桡骨小头骨折的不同类型,分别采用切开复位内固定、桡骨头切除、人工桡骨小头置换等方法治疗桡骨小头骨折,并分析其疗效,总结适宜的桡骨小头骨折治疗策略.方法回顾分析1999年11月-2008年5月收治的48例桡骨头骨折(47例患者)的临床资料,其中保守治疗9例(均为Mason Ⅰ型);切开复位内固定治疗28例(Mason Ⅰ型1例,Mason Ⅱ型14例,Mason Ⅲ型13例);桡骨小头切除8例(Mason Ⅲ型3例,Mason Ⅳ型5例);桡骨小头置换3例(Mason Ⅳ型).结果 平均随访2.6年(1～4.4年),2例桡骨小头置换分别随访6个月和3个月.按照Mayo肘关节功能评分评价其疗效,保守治疗优良率为8/9,切开复位内固定优良率为82%(23/28),桡骨头切除优良率为6/8,人工假体置换优良率为3/3.结论 桡骨小头骨折应该尽量达到解剖复位以方便早期的功能锻炼.Mason Ⅰ型骨折町以采用保守治疗;MasonⅡ型、Mason Ⅲ型和部分Mason Ⅳ型骨折可以采用切开复位内固定治疗;部分Mason Ⅳ型骨折无法通过内固定达到稳定固定的,可以选择单纯桡骨头切除或人工桡骨头假体置换.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

桡骨小头骨折的治疗

Objective To treat radial head fractures with open reduction and internal fixation, removal of the radial head and artificial joint replacement based on different fracture types to discuss the outcome of these methods and summarize optimal strategy for treatment of radial head fractures. Meth-ods A retrospective study was done on data of 47 patients with 48 radial head fractures treated in our de-partment from November 1999 to May 2008. Among them, nine patients were treated conservatively (all type Mason Ⅰ fractures), 28 treated with open reduction and internal fixation (one patient with type Ma-son Ⅰ fracture, 14 with type Mason Ⅱ and 13 with type Mason Ⅲ), eight with removal of radial head (three patients with type Mason Ⅲ fractures and five with type Ⅳ) and three with artificial joint replace-ment (all type Mason Ⅳ fractures). Results All patients were followed up for average 2.8 years (1-4.4 years). Two patients treated with artificial joint replacement were followed up for six months and three months respectively. According to the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, the excellence rate was 8/9 in conservative treatment, 82% (23/28) in open reduction and internal fixation, 6/8 in removal of the radial head and 3/3 in artificial joint replacement respectively. Conclusions The radial head fracture should be given anatomical reduction for early functional exercise. Conservative treatment can be used for type Mason Ⅰ fractures, open reduction and internal fixation for type Mason Ⅱ , type Mason Ⅲ fractures and part of type Mason Ⅳ fractures. The removal of radial head or mental prosthesis replacement are al-ternative for parte of type Mason Ⅳ fractures that can not attain stable fixation through open reduction and internal fixation.     

手术治疗肱骨近端骨折83例临床分析

目的探讨肱骨近端骨折的手术治疗方法。方法回顾性分析比较肱骨近端锁定钢板与三叶钢板治疗肱骨近端骨折的效果。结果锁定钢板治疗组的疗效与三叶钢板治疗组,在满意度、并发症情况、手术时间和输血量等方面均存在显著性差异（P〈0.05）。结论肱骨近端锁定刚板可使骨折部得到复位及稳定的固定,对骨和软组织血供影响小,可使患肩关节早期安全的活动,避免关节僵硬,是治疗肱骨近端骨折首选的治疗方法。     

人工肱骨头假体置换与锁定板治疗复杂肱骨近端骨折的疗效对比

目的比较人工肱骨头假体置换与锁定板治疗复杂肱骨近端骨折的疗效。方法回顾性分析2013—2016年南通大学附属南京江北人民医院创伤关节外科收治的32例复杂肱骨近端骨折患者的临床资料,其中采取人工肱骨头假体置换治疗16例(置换组),采取锁定钢板内固定治疗16例(内固定组)。比较两组患者一般手术情况、临床疗效、术后4周时VAS评分及Constant-Murley评分。结果 (1)两组患者在手术时间、术中出血量及一次性手术费用比较方面差异无统计学意义(P0.05);(2)置换组Neer评分优良率为75.00%,内固定组Neer评分优良率为81.25%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);(3)置换组VAS评分(2.14±0.52)分,内固定组VAS评分(2.37±0.61)分,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05);(4)置换组Constant-Murley评分(65.28±13.04)分,内固定组Constant-Murley评分(61.44±11.62)分,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论人工肱骨头假体置换与锁定板治疗复杂肱骨近端骨折的手术时间、术中出血量及手术花费无明显差异,术后疗效相近。术式的选择主要依赖骨折复杂程度和患者一般状况。     

成人肱骨远端骨折的手术治疗分析

目的探讨成人肱骨远端骨折(含髁间骨折)的手术内固定方法和疗效。方法 2006年1月—2009年6月手术治疗成人肱骨远端骨折患者50例,其中陈旧性骨折3例,开放性骨折10例。AO/ASIF分型:A型3例,B型7例,C型40例。按照不同的骨折类型采用相应的内固定并进行功能锻炼。定期随访并手术后1、3、6个月拍片,了解骨折愈合和关节功能恢复情况。结果 50例均获得随访,随访时间6～24个月,平均13个月,50例均骨折愈合,肘关节功能恢复满意。结论对成人肱骨远端骨折采用手术方法 ,术中充分显露,骨折关节面解剖复位,在髁上部利用钢板,螺钉,克氏针合理运用牢靠固定,可以获得满意的治疗效果。     

人工肱骨头置换治疗肱骨近端复杂性骨折

目的　探讨人工肱骨头置换治疗肱骨近端复杂性骨折的临床价值和相关问题。　方法　肱骨近端复杂性骨折 2 3例 ,男 10例 ,女 13例 ;年龄 4 3～ 76岁 ,平均 5 8.6岁。根据Neer分类 ,三部分骨折 4例 ,四部分骨折 17例 ,肱骨头劈裂骨折 2例 ;新鲜骨折 (受伤后 2周内 ) 18例 ,陈旧骨折 5例。均采用人工肱骨头置换术治疗。　结果　所有患者平均随访时间 15 .6个月 ,均无感染、神经损伤和假体周骨折 ;无假体松动、脱位等并发症。美国加州洛杉矶半关节成形改良评分系统 (SSMH)综合评分平均为 2 6 .3分 ,2 7分以上 (优 ) 3例 ,2 4～ 2 7分 (良 ) 18例 ,优良率为 91.3% ;18～2 4分 (中 ) 2例 ,<18分 (差 ) 0例。 2 3例患者疼痛方面平均得分为 9.5分 ,功能方面为 8.6分 ,肌力和运动方面为 8.2分。　结论　人工肱骨头置换术是治疗肱骨近端复杂性骨折较满意的方法 ,在减除创伤后肩关节疼痛方面效果显著。正确选择适应证、熟悉肩关节解剖关系、掌握手术技巧和早期合理的术后康复治疗是保证治疗效果满意的关键。     

人工肱骨头置换治疗肱骨近端复杂骨折

目的探讨人工肱骨头置换治疗肱骨近端复杂骨折的疗效。方法采用Thomp-son入路行人工肱骨头置换术20例。男8例,女12例;年龄61~73岁,平均67岁。按Neer分型:三部分4例,四部分16例。采用Neer评分系统,根据患者疼痛、功能、肩关节活动范围评价疗效。结果术后随访时间10~42个月,平均26个月,16例无肩痛,4例偶有肩痛,均能完成日常生活工作。肩关节活动范围:前屈102.5°,后伸37.5°,外展85.5°,内收30°,外旋35°,内旋45°。全组无血管神经损伤、假体松动及脱位。按Neer评分:优6例,良11例,可3例,优良率85%,患者主观满意率90%。结论人工肱骨头置换治疗肱骨近端复杂骨折,疗效满意,但应严格掌握手术指征。精确的假体安置,假体周围软组织重建与平衡技术,术后系统、持久的康复训练是肩关节功能恢复的保证。     

肱骨髁间骨折的双钢板手术治疗

目的 探讨肱骨髁间骨折双钢板手术治疗的效果. 方法 2004年1月- 2011年3月共收治31例肱骨髁间骨折患者,根据AO/Müller分类:C1型3例,C2型16例,C3型12例.采用后正中切口经尺骨鹰嘴截骨或肱三头肌两侧入路,切开复位双钢板内固定治疗. 结果 31例患者经12 ～ 18个月随访,术后6～12个月均获骨性愈合.根据Cassebaum法评分:优7例,良19例,可4例,差1例,优良率为87％. 结论 双钢板治疗肱骨髁间骨折,固定牢靠、力学性能稳定、并发症少,能早期进行肘关节功能锻炼,是目前治疗肱骨髁间骨折的较好方法.     

跟骨骨折的手术治疗

目的 探讨跟骨骨折的特点、骨折分型，分析手术方法及创伤并发症的防治。方法 自1998年7月至2003年11月，共收治跟骨骨折58例，按Essex—Lopresti系统分型，其中关节外骨折16例；关节内骨折42例，包括关节压缩性骨折24例和舌形骨折18例。关节外骨折为稳定性骨折，采取闭合复位，非负重石膏管型固定；涉及后关节面明显移位骨折采取手术治疗，跟骨后关节面解剖复位，跟骨解剖接骨板内固定；后关节面严重粉碎骨折，同时行距下关节Ⅰ期融合。结果 本组手术治疗的患者随访2～7年，平均3．6年。根据患者的主诉、后跟的外形及距骨下关节的功能及X线征象，尤其是Bohler角的恢复来评价临床疗效。其中优16例（38％），良17例（40％），可6例（14％），差3例（7％），优良率为79％。本组患者术后无感染；后跟变宽，足底扁平6例；7例距骨下关节炎，其中3例因跟骨后关节面塌陷出现严重疼痛性关节炎，行距骨下关节融合手术。1例切口皮瓣顶端坏死、缺损。结论有移位的跟骨关节内骨折非手术治疗并发症多而且后果严重，手术切开复位尤其是后关节面的解剖复位对患者功能的恢复及并发症的防治极其重要。     

髋臼骨折的手术治疗

目的　探讨手术治疗髋臼骨折的临床疗效。　方法　 1995年 6月～ 2 0 0 0年 12月手术治疗髋臼骨折 6 2例 ,其中后壁骨折 13例 ,后柱骨折 2例 ,前柱骨折 3例 ,横形骨折 5例 ,横形伴后壁骨折 15例 ,后柱伴后壁骨折 3例 ,“T”形骨折 5例 ,前方伴后半横形骨折 4例 ,双柱骨折 12例。手术采用Kocher-Langenbeck(K -L)入路 37例 ,髂腹股沟入路 12例 ,扩展髂股入路 4例 ,髂股入路 2例 ,联合入路 (髂腹股沟 K -L入路 ) 7例。　结果　解剖复位 37例 ,良好复位 17例 ,差 4例 ,关节轮廓复位 4例。随访 1～ 5年 ,平均 2 .7年。临床疗效优良率 71% (4 4 /6 2 ) ,解剖复位和非解剖复位的临床优良率分别为 89% (33/37)和 4 4 % (11/2 5 ) (χ2 =2 2 .89,P <0 .0 1)。并发症 :坐骨神经损伤 4例 ,深部感染 2例 ,下肢深静脉栓塞 5例 ,异位骨化 2 4例 ,骨性关节炎 15例 ,股骨头缺血性坏死 5例。　结论　髋臼骨折最佳手术时机为伤后 4～ 7d ;手术治疗髋臼骨折可获得满意的骨折复位和临床疗效 ;手术疗效与骨折复位质量密切相关。     

髋臼骨折的手术治疗

目的：探讨提高髋臼骨折复位质量的方法。方法：自1995年3月至2001年8月，共手术治疗移位的髋臼骨折89例。按Letournel法进行分类，后壁骨折27例，后柱骨折5例，前柱骨折3例，横断骨折15例，双拄骨折15例，后柱 后壁骨折13例，横断 后壁骨折6例，“T”形骨折5例。选择Kocher-langenbeck切口46例，髂腹股沟切口27例，扩大的髂股切口1例，前后联合切口15例。结果：根据Matta提出的复位标准及Merlec d’Aubigne提出的临床评定标准，复位优良率为68．5％(61／89)；复位满意组临床评定优良率为73．8％(45／61)，复位不满意组临床评定优良率为35．7％(10／28)。结论：髋臼骨折的复位质量是决定临床手术疗效的关键。把握手术时机、正确选择切口、注意手术顺序、正确放置钢板和置入螺钉，以及提高手术医师的临床经验，是提高复位质量的关键。     

微创钢板接骨术与肱骨头置换治疗老年Neer四部分骨折

目的 通过前瞻性研究探讨微创钢板接骨术(minimally invasive plate osteoynthesis,MIPO)与肱骨头置换治疗老年Neer四部分骨折的疗效. 方法 胸大肌三角肌间隙人路,采用锁定钢板结合MIPO技术治疗老年新鲜Neer四部分骨折28例(A组),行人工肱骨头置换治疗相同骨折27例(B组),应用Neer评分、Constant - Murley评分以及简明肩关节问卷(simple shoulder test,SST)等评估治疗结果. 结果 A组平均随访32.1个月,2例螺钉进入关节间隙,1例大结节向后上移位,肱骨头缺血性坏死1例.平均疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analog scale,VAS)、平均肩关节Neer评分和平均Constant - Murley评分分别为2.2分、88.6分和86.5分.SST中回答“是”的问题平均为9.0个.B组平均随访34.6个月,4例出现肩关节脱位或者半脱位,8例出现大结节移位或过度复位问题.平均VAS评分、平均Neer评分和平均Constant - Murley评分分别为2.4分、78.9分和77.3分.SST问卷中回答“是”的问题平均为8.0个.两组VAS评分比较差异无统计学意义,而并发症、Neer评分、Constant - Murley评分及SST评分结果比较差异有统计学意义,A组优于B组. 结论 对于大多数老年Neer四部分骨折,在严格掌握手术适应证及手术技巧的前提下,应用MIPO可以获得满意的结果,而人工肱骨头置换术仍存在较多尚未解决的问题,选择时需慎重.