背景:在这个活跃生活的时代,工业增长,越来越多的汽车事故,和体育活动,前臂骨骨折越来越频繁。据报道,前臂骨折的发生率约为每年每10,000人中有10人,尽管费率可能因年龄和性别而异。如果治疗不当,前臂骨骨折可能导致功能严重丧失。因此,要恢复功能,这些骨折需要足够的解剖复位和内固定。大多数成人前臂骨折都是通过手术治疗的,和各种模式的内固定是可用的。在这项研究中,我们评估并比较了临床,功能,钢板接骨术和髓内钉治疗前臂骨干骨折的放射学结果。
方法:这项前瞻性和比较性研究是在拉贾斯坦邦南部的三级护理医学教学医院进行的,印度。纳入了我院伤员或骨科门诊部的40例桡骨和尺骨骨干骨折患者。患者分为两组,每组20例,采用髓内钉(A组)和钢板内固定(B组)治疗,并定期随访和评估临床,功能,和放射学结果。
结果:根据改进的Grace-Eversmann评分系统计算最终结果。在A组中,在20例中,有6例(30%)获得了优异的评分,9例(45%)得分良好,三起案件得分公平(15%),最后,2例(10%)结果不佳。B组,8例(40%)得分为优,8例(40%)得分较好,3例(15%)得分公平,最后,在我们的研究中,有1例(5%)较差.
结论:根据我们的发现,我们得出的结论是,对于桡骨和尺骨骨干骨折的治疗,两种治疗方式均提供同样令人满意的结果.
BACKGROUND: In this era of active living, industrial growth, increasing automobile accidents, and athletic activities, fractures of the forearm bones are becoming more frequent. The incidence of diaphyseal fractures of both bone forearms is reported to be approximately 10 per 10,000 persons per year, although rates may vary according to age and sex. If not properly treated, a fracture of the forearm bones might cause a serious loss of function. Therefore, to restore function, these fractures require adequate anatomical reduction and internal fixation. The majority of forearm fractures in adults are treated surgically, and various modes of internal fixation are available. In this study, we evaluated and compared the clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes of both bone forearm diaphyseal fractures treated with plate osteosynthesis and intramedullary nailing.
METHODS: This prospective and comparative study was conducted in a tertiary care medical teaching hospital in southern Rajasthan, India. Forty patients with diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna bones who presented to the casualty or orthopedic outpatient departments of our institute were included. Patients were divided into two groups, 20 patients in each group and treated by intramedullary nailing (group A) and plate osteosynthesis (group B), and regularly followed up and evaluated for clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes.
RESULTS: Final results were calculated according to the modified Grace-Eversmann scoring system. In group A, out of 20 cases excellent score was seen in six cases (30%), good score in nine cases (45%), fair score in three cases (15%), and at last, two cases (10%) showed poor results. In group B, excellent score was in eight cases (40%), good score was in eight cases (40%), fair score was in three cases (15%), and at last, one case (5%) was poor in our study.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we conclude that for the treatment of diaphyseal fractures of the radius and ulna, both treatment modalities provide equally satisfactory results.