锁定加压钢板和解剖钢板治疗胫骨远端骨折疗效对比

目的：研究锁定加压钢板（locking compression plate,LCP）和解剖钢板治疗胫骨远端骨折的疗效差异。方法：选取2008年1月~2011年6月我科诊治的胫骨远端骨折患者90例,根据治疗方式分成锁定加压钢板治疗组（LCP组,45例）和解剖钢板治疗组（ANP组,45例）,比较两组患者疗效和并发症的差异。结果：LCP组踝关节功能评分,优27例,良13例,中3例,差2例,优良率为88.9%;ANP组踝关节功能评分,优22例,良10例,中7例,差6例,优良率为71.1%。LCP组胫骨远端骨折患者的手术时间、出血量、骨移植率和X线愈合时间显著低于ANP组（P〈0.05）,而术中透视次数显著高于ANP组（P〈0.05）。LCP组血肿、伤口皮肤坏死、创伤性关节炎、内固定断裂和骨不连发生率低于ANP组,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,但LCP组并发症总数显著低于ANP组（P〈0.05）。结论：LCP治疗胫骨远端骨折疗效显著,术后并发症少,疗效显著高于解剖钢板治疗。

Comparison of locking compression plate and anatomical plate's curative ef-fects in the treatment of distal tibia fracture

Objective: To study the differences of locking compression plate(LCP) and anatomical plate's curative effects on distal tibia fracture.Methods: 90 cases with distal tibia fracture from January 2008 and Jun 2011 were treated with locking compression plate(LCP group,45 cases) and anatomical plate(ANP group,45 cases).The curative effects and postoperative complications of two groups were compared.Results: The good comprehensive function of ankle in LCP group,excellent in 27 cases,good in 13 cases,acceptable in...