新型持骨器与复位钳修复锁骨骨折的结果比较

背景：目前用于锁骨骨折固定的方法主要是重建钢板或解剖钢板，而用于维持骨折对位并行钢板内固定的专用器械现有文献中还罕有报道。目前多数医生是用复位钳来维持骨折对位并夹持钢板进行内固定，但用复位钳来维持骨折对位并夹持钢板的方法有很多缺点，如损伤大、固定不牢、不便于钢板折弯塑形等。 目的：比较新型持骨器与复位钳用于修复锁骨骨折的疗效。 方法：纳入2011年12月至2013年12月南京医科大学附属淮安第一医院骨科收治的75例锁骨骨折患者，按随机方法分为2组，新型持骨器组39例，复位钳组36例。新型持骨器组采用手术切开，复位钳复位，新型持骨器维持骨折对位并钢板内固定；复位钳组采用手术切开，复位钳复位，复位钳维持骨折对位并钢板内固定。比较两组在切口长度、手术时间、失血量、骨折愈合时间和临床疗效等方面的差异。 结果与结论：所有病例均取得半年以上随访。两组患者在手术切口长度方面差异无显著性意义（P〉0.05）；在手术时间、失血量、骨折愈合时间等方面，新型持骨器组明显优于复位钳组，差异有显著性意义（P〈0.01）。新型持骨器组临床疗效优良率明显高于复位钳组。提示与复位钳相比，应用新型持骨器修复锁骨骨折具有操作方便、组织损伤少、固定牢靠、手术时间短、骨折愈合快的优点。

New-style bone holder versus reduction forceps in treatment of clavicular fracture

BACKGROUND：The current fixation methods for clavicle fracture are mainly anatomy plate or reconstruction plate. The specific devices for maintaining fracture alignment and fixation are rarely reported. The majority of physicians prefer reduction forceps to maintain fracture alignment and retain plate for internal fixation. However, reduction forceps have many disadvantages, such as large damage, instable fixation and difficult to bend or mould plates. 〈br〉 OBJECTIVE：To compare the clinical effect of new-style bone holder and reduction forceps in treatment of clavicular fractures. 〈br〉 METHODA total of 75 patients with clavicular fractures were recruited from Department of Orthopedics, Huai’an First Hospital, Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, between December 2011 and December 2013. The involved patients were randomly divided into two groups, new-style bone holder （39 cases） and reduction forceps （36 cases）. In new-style bone holder group, the wounds were opened and reduced using reduction forceps, then new-style bone holder was applied to maintain fracture alignment and internal fixation;in reduction forceps group, the wounds were opened and reduced using reduction forceps, then reduction forceps was applied to maintain fracture alignment and internal fixation. The length of incision, the time of operation,＆amp;nbsp;intraoperative blood loss, fracture healing time and clinical efficacy in two groups were compared. 〈br〉 RESULTS AND CONCLUSION：Al cases were fol owed up for over half a year. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the length of incision （P〉0.05）. The new-style bone holder group was obviously better than reduction forceps group in the time of operation, intraoperative blood loss and fracture healing time, with significant difference （P〈0.01）. The clinical efficacy was significantly higher than reduction forceps group. Experimental findings indicate that, new-style bone holder is characterized by simple operation, few trauma, stab