经皮微创内固定与切开复位内固定治疗肱骨近端骨折的临床疗效比较

目的比较经皮微创内固定（MIPO）与切开复位内固定（ORIF）治疗肱骨近端骨折（NeerⅡ、Ⅲ型）的疗效。方法回顾性分析自2005-01-2012—03采用MIPO和ORIF治疗的78例肱骨近端骨折的临床资料。结果ORIF组9例发生并发症。MIPO组6例发生并发症，2组比较差异无统计学意义（P=0．715）。Neer评分：ORIF组优10例，良3例，可1例，差1例；MIPO组优10例，良5例，2组比较差异无统计学意义（P=0．441）。2组患者在手术时间、术中术后出血量、住院时间、骨折愈合时间方面差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论对于肱骨近端骨折（NeerⅡ、Ⅲ型）的治疗，ORIF与MIPO治疗效果相当。

Clinical curative effect comparison between minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis and open reduction and internal fixation for proximal humeral fractures

Objective To compare the curative effect of minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis （MIPO） and open reduction and internal fixation （ORIF） for treatment of proximal humeral fractures （Neer II, III ）. Methods The data of 78 patients with proximal humeral fractures had received ORIF and MIPO from Jan. 2005 to Mar. 2012 were retrospectively analyzed.Results Complications took place in 9 eases in ORIF group and 6 cases in MIPO group, and there＇s no significant difference （P=0.715）. According to the Neer score, 10 cases were evaluated as exeeUent, 3 as good, 1 as fair and 1 as poor at ORIF group. At MIPO group, 10 eases were evaluated as excellent and 5 as good. And there＇s no significant difference（P =0.441）. There＇s no significant differences in operation time, the amount of bleeding during and after operation, hospital stay and healing time of fractures between the two groups （P 〉0.05）.Conclusion There is no significant difference of clinical curative effect between MIPO and ORIF in treating proximal humeral fraetures（Neer II,III ）.