记忆合金髌骨爪与张力带钢丝治疗髌骨骨折的临床疗效对比

目的探讨记忆合金髌骨爪与张力带钢丝在治疗髌骨骨折中的疗效差异。方法 98例髌骨骨折患者,其中采用记忆合金髌骨爪内固定治疗48例(记忆合金髌骨爪组),采用张力带钢丝治疗50例(张力带钢丝组)。所有病例随访3～14个月,平均9个月。比较两组的手术时间、膝关节功能恢复的优良率及相关并发症的情况。结果术后膝关节功能恢复情况比较,记忆合金髌骨爪组优良率97.9%,张力带钢丝组优良率86%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组手术时间比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);术后并发症中内固定滑脱松动、内固定物皮肤刺激两项记忆合金髌骨爪组明显少于张力带钢丝组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论记忆合金髌骨爪治疗髌骨骨折疗效优于改良张力带钢丝,是一种优良的内固定方法。

Comparative study of patella catching and im proved tension band steel wire on patella comminuted fracture

Objective To discuss the differences of Shape memory alloy clamp and tension band steel wire in the treatment of patella fracture. Methods From July 2006 to may 2011 ,two methods were used for patella fracture patients,48 cases were in Shape memory alloy clamp group, and 50 cases were in tension band steel wire group. All eases have been followed up for 3 to 14 months, an average of nine months. Two groups of operation time, knee functional, and the related complications were compared. Results Shape memory alloy clamp group is better than the tension band steel wire group in aspects of the operation time, postoperative knee functional recovery, and complications. Conclusion In the treatment of patella fracture, Shape memory alloy clamp is better than the tension band steel wire, and it is a good internal fixation method.