Abstract Objective To compare the efficacy of double-row suture anchor bridge and hollow lag screw fixation in the treatment of elderly patients with isolatedgreater tuberosity fracture.Methods From June 2017 to June 2019,40 cases of isolatedgreater tuberosity fracture aged 60 years and over were treated in our hospital.They were divided into trial group (20 cases) and control group (20 cases) according to different fixation methods.The trial group was fixed with double-row suture anchor bridge,while the control group was fixed with multiple hollow lag screws.The time of fracture union,Constant-Murley score and visual analog scale (VAS) at the last follow-up,postoperative complications and secondary surgery rate were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results 40 patients were followed up for 12~24 months,with an average of (14.9±1.5) months.All patientshad fracture union.The union time was (7.9±2.3) weeks in the trial group and (8.5±3.1) weeks in the control group.There was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05).At the last follow-up,ConstantMurley score was (89.4±11.2) in the trial group and (80.3±8.9) points in the control group.There was a significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05).At the last follow-up,the VAS score of the trial group was (0.6±0.4)and the control group was (1.4±1.2) (P<0.05).Postoperative infection was observed in 1 case in the trial group and 2 cases in the control group (P>0.05).Re-displacement was observed in 0 cases in the trial group and 6 cases in the control group (P<0.05);impingement syndrome was observed in 0 cases in the trial group and 4 cases in the control group (P<0.05);secondary surgery was performed in 0 cases in the trial group and 10 cases in the control group (P<0.05).Conclusion The double-row suture anchor bridge is an effective and reliable method in the treatment of elderly patients with greater tuberostiy fracture.Compared with hollow lag screw fixation,this method can effectively improve the shoulderfunction,and reduce the incidence of complications and rate of reoperation.
|
|
|
|
|