手法整复外固定支架固定与切开复位钢板内固定治疗克雷氏骨折的效果比较

目的 比较采用手法整复外固定支架固定与切开复位钢板内固定治疗克雷氏骨折的临床效果.方法 选取120例克雷氏骨折患者,利用随机数字表法进行分组,分别设为观察组和对照组,每组各60例.对照组采取手法整复外固定架固定治疗,而观察组则实施切开复位钢板内固定治疗.记录两组患者骨折预后情况及并发症发生率,并做好对比.结果 观察组总有效率为93.3％,对照组总有效率为91.7％,两组差异无统计学意义（x2 =2.083,P＞0.05）;观察组显效率83.3％,对照组显效率为66.7％,两组差异有统计学意义（x2=5.436,P ＜0.05）.观察组并发症发生率为3.3％ （2/60）,对照组为8.3％（5/60）,差异有统计学意义（x2 =6.172,P＜0.05）.结论 两种方案在治疗克雷氏骨折方面的效果相当,对不愿接受手术治疗患者可实施手法整复外固定架固定治疗,若存在粉碎性骨折则实施切开复位钢板内固定治疗.

Comparison of the effect of manipulative reduction and external fixation and internal fixation in the treatment of Colles fracture

Objective To compare the effect of different fracture fixation in the treatment of patients with Colles fracture. Methods 120 patients with Colles fracture were randomly divided into the study group and control group , 6 0 cases in each group. The control group received the manipulative reduction and external fixation frame ,while the study group was treated with open reduction and plate fixation of implementation. The fracture prognosis and the incidence of complications were recorded and compared. Results The total effective rate of the study group was 93.3%, the total effective rate of the control group was 91.7%, there was no statistically significant difference be- tween the two groups （ X2 = 2. 083, P 〉 0.05 ）. The obvious effective rate of the study group was 83.3 %, that of the control group was 66.7% , the difference was statistically significant （ X2 = 5. 436, P 〈 0.05 ）. The incidence rate of complications between the two groups had no significant difference 3.3% （2/60） vs 8.3% （5/60）, P 〈 0.05 ]. Conclusion The two plans in the treatment of Colles fracture had similar clinical effect, patients who unwilling to accept operation treatment can be given manipulative reduction and external fixation, if there is comminuted fracture, the open reduction and plate fixation should be implemented.