目的探讨锁定钢板治疗肱骨近端骨折中肱骨颈干角重建程度对疗效的影响。 方法回顾分析2009年3月－2013年3月，106例采用锁定钢板治疗的肱骨近端骨折患者临床资料。男58例，女48例；年龄26～71岁，平均52.3岁。致伤原因：交通事故伤54例，高处坠落伤23例，摔伤21例，其他伤8例。根据Neer分型标准：二部分骨折32例，三部分骨折65例，四部分骨折9例。受伤至手术时间1～7 d，平均2.7 d。根据术后1～3 d X线片测量的肱骨颈干角，将患者分为3组进行影像学以及临床疗效比较。其中术后肱骨颈干角＞145°为外翻组，126～145°为正常组，＜126°为内翻组。 结果根据术后肱骨颈干角分组，外翻组10例，正常组75例，内翻组21例；3组患者一般资料比较，差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。患者术后均获随访，随访时间6～12个月。X线片复查，3组骨折愈合时间比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。术后6个月正常组肱骨头内翻角、疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）显著低于内、外翻组（P＜0.05）。正常组Constant-Murley评分优良率为78.67%（59/75），显著高于外翻组60.00%（6/10）以及内翻组42.86%（9/21）（P＜0.05）；内、外翻组间比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。内翻组并发症发生率为28.57%（6/21），正常组为10.67%（8/75），外翻组为20.00%（2/10），比较差异无统计学意义（χ2=4.31，P=0.12）。 结论肱骨近端骨折术中肱骨颈干角正常重建是术后肩关节功能恢复的关键因素
References
[1]
5. Jones CB, Sietsema DL, Williams DK. Locked plating of proximal humeral fractures:is function affected by age, time, and fracture patterns? Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2011, 469(12):3307-3316.
[2]
6. Sohn HS, Shin SJ. Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for proximal humeral fractures:clinical and radiologic outcomes according to fracture type. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2014, 23(9):1334-1340.
[3]
7. Jayaseelan DJ, Post AA, Ruggirello LD, et al. Midshaft humeral fracture following a proximal humeral fracture:a case report. Int J Sports Phys Ther, 2014, 9(7):1014-1020.
[4]
8. Namdari S, Lipman AJ, Ricchetti ET, et al. Fixation strategies to prevent screw cut-out and malreduction in proximal humeral fracture fixation. Clin Orthop Surg, 2012, 4(4):321-324.
[5]
9. Olerud P, Ahrengart L, Soderqvist A, et al. Quality of life and functional outcome after a 2-part proximal humeral fracture:a prospective cohort study on 50 patients treated with a locking plate. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2010, 19(6):814-822.
[6]
12. Weeks CA, Begum F, Beaupre LA, et al. Locking plate fixation of proximal humeral fractures with impaction of the fracture site to restore medial column support:a biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2013, 22(11):1552-1557.
[7]
14. Feerick EM, Kennedy J, Mullett H, et al. Investigation of metallic and carbon fibre PEEK fracture fixation devices for three-part proximal humeral fractures. Med Eng Phys, 2013, 35(6):712-722.
[8]
15. Bigorre N, Talha A, Cronier P, et al. A prospective study of a new locking plate for proximal humeral fracture. Injury, 2009, 40(2):192-196.
[9]
18. Neuhaus V, Swellengrebel CH, Bossen JK, et al. What are the factors influencing outcome among patients admitted to a hospital with a proximal humeral fracture? Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2013, 471(5):1698-1706.
[10]
13. Solberg BD, Moon CN, Franco DP, et al. Locked plating of 3- and 4-part proximal humems fractures in older patients:the effete of initial fracture pattern on outcome. J Orthop Trauma, 2009, 23(2):113-119.
[11]
1. Feerick EM, Kennedy J, Mullett H, et al. Investigation of metallic and carbon fibre peek fracture fixation devices for three-part proximal humeral fractures. Med Eng Phys, 2013, 35(6):712-722.
[12]
2. Huff LR, Taylor PA, Jani J, et al. Proximal humeral fracture fixation:a biomechanical comparison of two constructs. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2013, 22(1):129-136.
10. Pawaskar AC, Lee KW, Kim JM, et al. Locking plate for proximal humeral fracture in the elderly population:serial change of neck shaft angle. Clin Orthop Surg, 2012, 4(3):209-215.
[16]
11. Dhar SA, Wani SA, Dar TA, et al. Open management of neglected inferior dislocation of the shoulder with proximal humeral fracture in an adolescent. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr, 2013, 8(1):53-55.
[17]
16. Maier D, Jaeger M, Izadpanah K, et al. Proximal humeral fracture treatment in adults. J Bone Joint Surg (Am), 2014, 96(3):251-261.
[18]
17. van de Water AT, Shields N, Davidson M, et al. Reliability and validity of shoulder function outcome measures in people with a proximal humeral fracture. Disabil Rehabil, 2014, 36(13):1072-1079.
