肱骨干骨折手术与非手术治疗的比较

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-167X.2017.05.019

北京大学学报(医学版) ›› 2017, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (5): 851-854. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-167X.2017.05.019

肱骨干骨折手术与非手术治疗的比较

张伯松¹, 李文毅², 刘兴华¹, 危杰¹, 贺良¹, 王满宜¹

1. 北京积水潭医院创伤骨科,北京 100035;
2. 河北省人民医院骨科,石家庄 050051

收稿日期:2015-10-22 出版日期:2017-10-18 发布日期:2017-10-18

Comparative results of non-operative and operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures

ZHANG Bo-song¹, LI Wen-yi², LIU Xing-hua¹, WEI Jie¹, HE Liang¹, WANG Man-yi¹

1. Department of Orthopaedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing 100035, China;
2. Department of Orthopaedics, Hebei General Hospital, Shijiazhuang 050051, China

Received:2015-10-22 Online:2017-10-18 Published:2017-10-18

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的比较肱骨干骨折手术与非手术治疗方法的临床疗效,以期指导临床选择。方法连续入选2005年3月至2012年10月间有完整随访资料的患者252例,根据治疗方法的不同将患者分为保守治疗组和手术内固定组,其中保守治疗组76例使用石膏或小夹板固定骨折,手术内固定组176例使用切开复位钢板或髓内针固定骨折。对两组间并发症发生率、骨折愈合时间、骨折愈合率、Constant-Murley肩关节功能评分和Mayo肘关节功能评分等参数进行比较。结果平均随访(31.24±20.06)个月。两组数据在年龄、开放骨折数量、骨折部位和AO(Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen)分类方面差异没有统计学意义。骨折愈合率:保守治疗组96.1%(73/76),手术内固定组97.7%(172/176),P=0.46;骨折愈合时间:保守治疗组(10.24±2.93)周,手术内固定组(10.69±2.51)周,P=0.22;并发症发生率: 保守治疗组5.3%(4/76例),手术内固定组15.3% (27/176例),P=0.025;其中骨折不愈合率:保守治疗组3.95%(3/76),手术内固定组2.3%(4/176), P=0.43; 桡神经损伤:保守治疗组0%(0/76),手术内固定组5.7%(10/176), P=0.035; 骨劈裂: 保守治疗组0%(0/76),手术内固定组1.7%(3/176), P=0.556; 肘僵硬: 保守治疗组1.3%(1/76),手术内固定组0.6%(1/176), P=1.000; 肩痛:保守治疗组0%(0/76),手术内固定组5.1%(9/176), P=0.061。Constant-Murley肩关节功能评分:保守治疗组(97.37±4.94)分,手术内固定组(96.34±6.88)分,P=0.24;Mayo肘关节功能评分:保守治疗组(99.80±1.72)分,手术内固定组(99.49±2.73)分,P=0.36。结论肱骨干骨折保守治疗与手术治疗的疗效相当,但并发症少。

关键词: 肱骨干骨折, 石膏, 小夹板, 钢板, 带锁髓内针

Abstract: Objective: To compare the difference between non-operative and operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Methods: From March 2005 to October 2012, 252 cases of humeral shaft fractures were treated and were adequately followed up. According to the treatment methods, the patients were divided into 2 groups: the non-operative group and the operative group. In the non-operative group, there were 76 cases treated with plaster/small splint fixation,meanwhile there were 176 cases treated with internal fixation either by plating or by nailing in the operative group. The follow-up parameters included: fracture healing rate, fracture union time, complications rate, Constant- Murley shoulder score and Mayo elbow score. Results: The mean follow-up period was (31.24±20.06) months (ranging 6 to 103 months). There were no statistical differences in age, open fracture number, fracture site and Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen (AO) classification between the non-operative group and the operative group. The fracture healing rate: the non-operative group: 96.1%(72/76), the operative group: 97.7%(172/176), P=0.46; the fracture union time: the non-operative group: (10.24±2.93) weeks, the operative group: (10.69±2.51) weeks, P=0.22; the complication rate: the non-operative group: 5.3%(4/76),the operative group: 15.3%(27/176), P=0.03. The complications included: nonunion: the non-operative group: 3.95%(3/76), the operative group: 2.3%(4/176), P=0.434; radial nerve palsies: the non-operative group: 0%(0/76), the operative group: 5.7%(10/176), P=0.035; bone split: the non-operative group: 0%(0/76), the operative group: 1.7%(3/176), P=0.556; elbow stiffness: the non-operative group:1.3%(1/76), the operative group: 0.6%(1/176), P=1.000; shoulder pain: the non-operative group:0%(0/76), the operative group: 5.1%(9/176), P=0.061. The Constant-Murley shoulder score: the non-operative group: 97.37±4.94, the operative group: 96.34±6.88, P=0.244. The Mayo elbow score: the non-operative group: 99.80±1.72, the operative group: 99.49±2.73,P=0.923. Conclusion: The results of non-operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures appeared with excellent results with lower complications rate compared with that of the operative treatment.

Key words: Humeral shaft fracture, Plaster, Small splint, Plate, Interlocking intramedullary nail

中图分类号:

R683.41

张伯松, 李文毅, 刘兴华, 危杰, 贺良, 王满宜. 肱骨干骨折手术与非手术治疗的比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(5): 851-854.

ZHANG Bo-song, LI Wen-yi, LIU Xing-hua, WEI Jie, HE Liang, WANG Man-yi. Comparative results of non-operative and operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2017, 49(5): 851-854.

参考文献

[1] Zuckerman JD, Koval KJ. Fractures of the shaft of the humerus[M]//Rockwood CA, Green DP, Bucholz RW. Fractures in adults. 4th ed. Philadelphia-New York: Lippincott-Raven, 1996: 1025-1053.
[2] Stewart MJ, Hundley JM. Fractures of the humerus: A comparative study in methods of treatment[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am,1955, 37(4): 681-692.
[3] Hunter SG. The closed treatment of fractures of the humeral shaft[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1982(164): 192-198.
[4] Sarmiento A, Zagorski JB, Zych GA, et al. Functional bracing for the treatment of fractures of the humeral diaphysis[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2000, 82(4): 478-486.
[5] Zagorski JB, Latta LL, Zych GA, et al. Diaphyseal fractures of the humerus: treatment with prefabricated braces[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1988, 70(4): 607-610.
[6] Koch PP, Gross DF, Gerber C. The results of functional (Sarmiento) bracing of humeral shaft fractures[J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2002, 11(2): 143-150.
[7] Niall DM, O'Mahony J, McElwain JP. Plating of humeral shaft fractures: has the pendulum swung back? [J]. Injury, 2004, 35(6): 580-586.
[8] Martinez AA, Malillos M, Cuenca J, et al. Marchetti nailing of closed fresh humeral shaft fractures[J]. Chir Main,2004, 23(5): 237-242.
[9] Fernandez FF, Matschke S, Hülsenbeck A, et al. Five years’ cli-nical experience with the unreamed humeral nail in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures[J].Injury, 2004, 35(3): 264-271.
[10] Rommens PM, Blum J, Runkel M. Retrograde nailing of humeral shaft fractures[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1998(350): 26-39.
[11] Crates J, Whittle AP. Antegrade interlocking nailing of acute humeral shaft fractures[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1998(350): 40-50.
[12] Klestil T, Rangger C, Kathrein A, et al. The conservative and surgical therapy of traumatic humeral shaft fractures[J]. Chirurg, 1997, 68(11): 1132-1136.
[13] Wallny T, Sagebiel C, Westerman K, et al. Comparative results of bracing and interlocking nailing in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures[J]. Int Orthop, 1997, 21(6): 374-379.
[14] Jawa A, McCarty P, Doornberg J, et al. Extra-articular distal-third diaphyseal fractures of the humerus[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2006, 88(11): 2343-2347.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

肱骨干骨折手术与非手术治疗的比较

Comparative results of non-operative and operative treatment of humeral shaft fractures

RICH HTML

PDF (PC)

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 3

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	刘冰川,杨钟玮,周方,姬洪全,张志山,郭琰,田耘. 肱骨近端骨折微创锁定钢板改良内固定的疗效分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(2): 277-282.
[2]	刘中砥，马明太，陈建海，付中国，姜保国. 肱骨近端骨折“时间-角度测量”复位评估技术及临床疗效评估[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(6): 1003-1007.
[3]	李旭, 李奉龙, 鲁谊, 朱以明, 郭斯翊, 李屹钧, 姜春岩. 锁定钢板治疗非骨质疏松性复杂肱骨近端骨折的中期临床及影像学随访研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(5): 855-860.