【摘要】：[目的]對(duì)比順行鎖定髓內(nèi)釘和動(dòng)力加壓鋼板治療肱骨干骨折的臨床結(jié)果,并為以后此類骨折的治療提供更可信的證據(jù)。[方法]計(jì)算機(jī)檢索Cochrane library、Medline、Embase、CNKI等數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)網(wǎng)站,檢索2016年12月以前有關(guān)順行鎖定髓內(nèi)釘和動(dòng)力加壓鋼板治療肱骨干骨折的文獻(xiàn),篩選文獻(xiàn)后采用Revman 5.0軟件進(jìn)行分析,獲得兩種方法治療肱骨干骨折的臨床結(jié)果。[結(jié)果]最初搜索文獻(xiàn)472篇,經(jīng)過篩選后最終有8篇納入研究,共計(jì)完成隨訪患者373例,其中順行髓內(nèi)釘治療者187例,動(dòng)力加壓鋼板治療者186例。Meta分析表明,順行鎖定髓內(nèi)釘組患者術(shù)后感染率明顯低于動(dòng)力加壓鋼板組[OR=0.34,95%CI(0.12,0.98),P=0.05],但前者肩部撞擊征與再次手術(shù)率明顯高于后者[OR=7.81,95%CI(2.51,24.33),P0.001;OR=2.61,95%CI(1.19,5.72),P=0.02],術(shù)后橈神經(jīng)損傷與骨折不愈合率,兩者之間差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。[結(jié)論]與順行鎖定髓內(nèi)釘相比,動(dòng)力加壓鋼板治療肱骨干骨折可以降低肩部撞擊征與再次手術(shù)發(fā)生率,但卻增加了術(shù)后感染的發(fā)生率;術(shù)后橈神經(jīng)損傷及骨折不愈合方面,兩者差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。
[Abstract]:[objective] to compare the clinical results of anterior locking intramedullary nail and dynamic compression plate in the treatment of humeral shaft fracture, and to provide more credible evidence for the treatment of this kind of fracture in the future. [methods] Cochrane library,Medline,Embase,CNKI and other database websites were searched by computer, and the literature on the treatment of humeral shaft fracture with anterograde locking intramedullary nail and dynamic compression plate before December 2016 was searched. After screening, the literature was analyzed by Revman 5.0 software, and the clinical results of the two methods in the treatment of humeral shaft fracture were obtained. [results] A total of 373 follow-up patients were followed up, including 187 patients treated with intramedullary nailing and 186 patients treated with dynamic compression plate. Meta-analysis showed that the postoperative infection rate in the anterograde locking intramedullary nail group was significantly lower than that in the dynamic compression plate group [OR=0.34,95%CI (0.120.98), P 鈮，

本文編號(hào)：2515755