Abstract
目的
探讨采用锁骨及肩胛骨双重内固定并术中复位盂极角治疗浮肩损伤的临床疗效。
方法
2010 年 1 月—2019 年 6 月采用锁骨及肩胛骨双重内固定并术中复位盂极角治疗 13 例浮肩损伤患者。男 11 例,女 2 例;年龄 25~65 岁,平均 48 岁。致伤原因:高处坠落伤 2 例,交通事故伤 3 例,重物砸伤 2 例,其他伤 6 例。浮肩损伤分型:Ⅰ-B-3 型 2 例,Ⅰ-C-2 型 1 例,Ⅰ-C-3 型 1 例,Ⅱ-B-2 型 3 例,Ⅱ-B-3 型 1 例,Ⅱ-B-4 型 1 例,Ⅱ-C-2 型 2 例,Ⅱ-C-4 型 1 例,Ⅱ-D-3 型 1 例。均为单侧锁骨骨折伴肩胛颈骨折,肩关节悬吊复合体(superior shoulder suspensory complex,SSSC)损伤 1~4 处。受伤至手术时间 7~17 d,平均 12 d。手术前后测量盂极角、肩峰下间隙、肩胛盂前后倾斜角、肩胛盂上下倾斜角;采用 Constant-Murly 评分和 Herscovici 评分评价肩关节功能恢复情况。
结果
术后切口均Ⅰ期愈合,无感染等术后早期并发症发生。13 例均获随访,随访时间 12~48 个月,平均 25.2 个月。患者锁骨及肩胛骨均获骨性愈合,愈合时间分别为平均 6 个月和 4 个月。均未出现骨不连、肩关节畸形、钢板断裂或内固定失效、肩峰撞击综合征、冰冻肩等并发症。末次随访时,盂极角、肩峰下间隙、肩胛盂前后倾斜角和肩胛盂上下倾斜角均较术前明显纠正(P<0.05);Constant-Murly 评分中疼痛、活动度、日常功能、肌力评分及总分均较术前明显提高(P<0.05);根据 Herscovici 评分标准评价肩关节功能,获优 8 例、良 3 例、可 2 例,优良率 84.6%。
结论
采用锁骨及肩胛骨双重内固定稳定 SSSC 并术中复位盂极角治疗浮肩损伤可获得良好疗效。
Keywords: 浮肩损伤, 内固定, 肩关节悬吊复合体, 锁骨, 肩胛骨, 盂极角
Abstract
Objective
To investigate the effectiveness of double internal fixations of clavicle and scapula and intraoperative reduction of glenopolar angle in the treatment of floating shoulder injuries.
Methods
Between January 2010 and June 2019, 13 patients with floating shoulder injury were treated with double internal fixation of clavicle and scapula and intraoperative reduction of glenopolar angle. There were 11 males and 2 females with an average age of 48 years (range, 25-65 years). The causes of injury included falling from height in 2 cases, traffic accident injury in 3 cases, heavy object injury in 2 cases, and other injuries in 6 cases. There were 2 cases of Ⅰ-B-3 type, 1 case of Ⅰ-C-2 type, 1 case of Ⅰ-C-3 type, 3 cases of Ⅱ-B-2 type, 1 case of Ⅱ-B-3 type, 1 case of Ⅱ-B-4 type, 2 cases of Ⅱ-C-2 type, 1 case of Ⅱ-C-4 type, and 1 case of Ⅱ-D-3 type according to the classification of floating shoulder injury. All patients had unilateral clavicle fracture with scapular neck fracture, 1-4 superior shoulder suspensory complex (SSSC) injuries. The time from injury to operation was 7-17 days, with an average of 12 days. The glenopolar angle, subacromail space, anteroposterior inclination angle of scapular glenoid, scapular glenoid up and down angle were measured before and after operation; Constant-Murly score and Herscovici score were used to evaluate the recovery of shoulder joint function.
Results
All incisions healed by first intention, and there was no early postoperative complications such as infection. All 13 cases were followed up 12-48 months, with an average of 25.2 months. Both the clavicle and the scapula had bone union, and the average healing time was 6 months and 4 months respectively. There were no complications such as nonunion, shoulder deformity, plate fracture or failure of internal fixation, acromion impingement syndrome, and frozen shoulder. At last follow-up, the glenopolar angle, subacromail space, anteroposterior inclination angle of scapular glenoid, and scapular glenoid up and down angle were all corrected significantly (P<0.05). The pain, function, activity, muscle strength scores, and total score in Constant-Murly score were significantly improved when compared with preoperative scores (P<0.05). According to the Herscovici scoring standard, the shoulder joint function was evaluated as excellent in 8 cases, good in 3 cases, and fair in 2 cases. The excellent and good rate was 84.6%.
Conclusion
Double internal fixation of clavicle and scapula to stabilize SSSC and reduct glenopolar angle during operation is an effective method for treating the floating shoulder injury.
Keywords: Floating shoulder injury, internal fixation, superior shoulder suspensory complex, clavicle, scapula, glenopolar angle
浮肩损伤临床较少见,多由高能量损伤所致,占全身骨折的 0.1%,多伴有机体其他系统损伤[1]。Goss[2]将稳定肩关节悬吊复合体(superior shoulder suspensory complex,SSSC)的锁骨中段定义为上柱,肩胛骨外侧缘定义为下柱,SSSC 损伤同时伴有双柱骨折定义为浮肩损伤。文献报道浮肩损伤采用保守治疗效果较差[3-5];目前多选择手术治疗,通过锁骨及肩胛骨双重内固定,术中恢复肩胛颈移位及盂极角,术后功能可达到满意预期效果[4,6-8]。然而有文献[4, 7]报道盂极角的恢复与浮肩损伤治疗预后并无相关性。因此对于浮肩损伤手术治疗过程中是否需复位盂极角尚存争议。2010 年 1 月—2019 年 6 月我们收治 13 例浮肩损伤患者,采用锁骨及肩胛骨双重内固定治疗,术中复位损伤盂极角,获满意疗效。报告如下。
1. 临床资料
1.1. 一般资料
本组男 11 例,女 2 例;年龄 25~65 岁,平均 48 岁。致伤原因:高处坠落伤 2 例,交通事故伤 3 例,重物砸伤 2 例,其他伤 6 例。根据 Wong 等[9]的浮肩损伤分型:Ⅰ-B-3 型 2 例,Ⅰ-C-2 型 1 例,Ⅰ-C-3 型 1 例,Ⅱ-B-2 型 3 例,Ⅱ-B-3 型 1 例, Ⅱ-B-4 型 1 例,Ⅱ-C-2 型 2 例,Ⅱ-C-4 型 1 例,Ⅱ-D-3 型 1 例。均为单侧锁骨骨折伴肩胛颈骨折,左侧 4 例、右侧 9 例;SSSC 损伤 1~4 处。伴同侧肋骨骨折或血气胸 9 例;合并糖尿病或高血压 6 例,类风湿性关节炎 2 例,肝硬化 3 例,肺源性心脏病 1 例。术前均行正侧位 X 线片及 CT 三维重建等影像学检查。受伤至手术时间 7~17 d,平均 12 d。
1.2. 手术方法
术中使用器械为美国强生公司锁骨 T 型 3.5 mm 锁定加压接骨板配套螺钉及重建钢板配套螺钉。
患者于全麻下取侧卧漂浮体位。首先行锁骨固定,沿锁骨作横切口,暴露骨折断端,少许剥离骨折两端骨膜,2 把 Kocher 钳协助复位,克氏针临时固定;选择合适锁骨接骨板,依次拧入螺钉,如断端对合存在明显间隙则给予断端加压。粉碎性骨折的骨折断端以骨膜剥离器轻柔剥离,接骨板桥接置入后依次拧入螺钉。锁骨远端骨折优先选择锁骨钩接骨板固定。
然后行肩胛骨固定,取肩胛骨外侧缘入路,岗下肌与小圆肌间隙进入,避免损伤旋肩胛动脉(必要时将其结扎)。沿肩胛骨外侧缘上下剥离显露骨折断端,肩胛颈部因三角肌及冈下肌显露不充分,可沿肩胛颈骨膜下自下向上剥离,保护肩胛上血管、神经,辅助器械协助骨折复位,克氏针临时固定。C 臂 X 线机透视下正位、侧位、腋位观察盂极角复位情况,复位良好选择合适接骨板,接骨板肩胛颈端预弯以使其与肩胛颈更贴附,并避免其对肩胛上血管、神经的激惹;三角肌及冈下肌沿肌纤维方向稍作分离,利于肩胛颈部接骨板钻孔及螺钉植入,注意肩胛颈部螺钉植入方向,避免进入盂腔,活动患者肩关节确认螺钉未植入关节腔。
1.3. 术后处理及疗效评价指标
术后予以抗生素预防感染,以三角巾悬吊制动。术后 12~24 h 患者可离床,行患肢远端等长运动及腕关节活动;术后 2~3 d 被动活动患侧肩关节;术后 1 周开始行患肢肌力训练及肘腕关节主动活动;术后 3~4 周逐渐行肩关节主动活动。
术后 1、2、3、6、9、12 个月及之后每年 1 次定期随访。行肩关节正侧位 X 线片及 CT 三维重建检查,测量盂极角、肩峰下间隙、肩胛盂前后倾斜角、肩胛盂上下倾斜角[10-12],并与术前测量值比较;观察骨折愈合情况以及有无内固定失效、骨折再移位发生;采用 Constant-Murly 评分[13]和 Herscovici 评分[14]评价肩关节功能恢复情况。
1.4. 统计学方法
采用 Graphpad prism 8.0 统计软件进行分析。数据以均数±标准差表示,手术前后比较采用配对 t 检验;检验水准 α=0.05。
2. 结果
本组手术时间 100~180 min,平均 148.3 min;术中出血量 75~265 mL,平均 132 mL;住院时间 13~24 d,平均 17.3 d。术后切口均 Ⅰ 期愈合,无感染等术后早期并发症发生。13 例均获随访,随访时间 12~48 个月,平均 25.2 个月。患者锁骨及肩胛骨均获骨性愈合,锁骨愈合时间为 4~8 个月,平均 6 个月;肩胛骨愈合时间为 3~5 个月,平均 4 个月。均未出现骨不连、肩关节畸形、钢板断裂或内固定失效、肩峰撞击综合征、冰冻肩等并发症。末次随访时,盂极角、肩峰下间隙、肩胛盂前后倾斜角和肩胛盂上下倾斜角均较术前明显纠正,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。见表 1。末次随访时 Constant-Murly 评分中疼痛、活动度、日常功能、肌力评分及总分均较术前明显提高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。见表 2。根据 Herscovici 评分标准评价肩关节功能,获优 8 例、良 3 例、可 2 例,优良率 84.6%。除 1 例患者退休及 1 例患者更换工作外,余 11 例肩关节功能恢复后均重返原工作岗位。见图 1。
表 1.
Comparison of imaging indexes before and after operation (n=13,
)
患者手术前后影像学指标比较(n=13,
)
| 时间
Time |
盂极角(°)
Glenopolar angle (°) |
肩峰下间隙(mm)
Subacromial space (mm) |
肩胛盂前后倾斜角(°)
Anteroposterior inclination angle of scapular glenoid (°) |
肩胛盂上下倾斜角(°)
Scapular glenoid up and down angle (°) |
| 术前
Preoperative |
24.08±2.62 | 8.84±1.29 | 27.77±11.99 | 13.62±3.87 |
| 末次随访
Last follow-up |
35.00±1.73 | 11.53±2.02 | 10.54±3.46 | 8.00±2.04 |
| 统计值
Statistic |
t=13.190
P=0.000 |
t=5.142
P=0.000 |
t=6.447
P=0.000 |
t=6.538
P=0.000 |
表 2.
Comparison of Constant-Murly score before and after operation (n=13,
)
患者手术前后 Constant-Murly 评分比较(n=13,
)
| 时间
Time |
疼痛
Pain |
日常功能
Function |
活动度
Activity |
肌力
Muscle strength |
总分
Total |
| 术前
Preoperative |
1.5±2.3 | 3.7±1.3 | 8.5±2.5 | 10.9±3.1 | 24.6±6.5 |
| 末次随访
Last follow-up |
14.2±1.8 | 19.1±1.3 | 36.2±1.5 | 22.1±2.3 | 92.3±3.9 |
| 统计值
Statistic |
t=13.860
P=0.000 |
t=33.670
P=0.000 |
t=30.860
P=0.000 |
t=11.790
P=0.000 |
t=29.260
P=0.000 |
图 1.
A 52-year-old male patient with left floating shoulder injury caused by traffic accident
患者,男,52 岁,交通事故伤致左侧浮肩损伤
a. 术前 X 线片;b、c. 术前 CT 三维重建(前后位);d. 术后即刻 X 线片;e. 术后 6 个月 X 线片示锁骨及肩胛骨骨折处骨性愈合;f、g. 术后 1 年肩关节功能
a. X-ray film before operation; b, c. Anteroposterior CT three-dimensional reconstruction before operation; d. X-ray film at immediate after operation; e. X-ray film at 6 months after operation showed bone union of clavicle and scapula fractures; f, g. Shoulder joint function at 1 year after operation
3. 讨论
3.1. 浮肩损伤手术时机选择
浮肩损伤通常由高能量损伤导致,伴有其他相关系统损伤,入院后一般优先处理危及患者生命的创伤[15-17];待处理完善后浮肩损伤病程多已超过 21 d,骨折断端骨痂形成,大大增加了手术难度,且术中剥离软组织范围增大,增加了术中出血量和手术时间,感染风险增加。因此,临床处理陈旧性浮肩损伤多采取保守治疗方式[18-19]。对于损伤较轻的患者,骨折断端相对稳定,保守治疗后肢体功能可部分甚至完全恢复;但对于粉碎性骨折患者,移位明显、肩胛骨形态破坏严重、关节盂损伤严重,保守治疗意义不大。George 等[20]将 60 例浮肩损伤患者分为 3 组,分别行保守治疗、早期手术治疗及延期手术治疗,结果发现早期手术有利于患者术后功能恢复。所以当患者其他系统损伤处理完善后,应根据浮肩损伤分型尽早规划手术入路、内固定方式,术后早期进行功能康复锻炼,有利于获得满意的功能预后。
3.2. 浮肩损伤手术指征及治疗方法选择
浮肩损伤不仅是单纯骨折移位,同时伴有相关韧带损伤[20-21]。Williams 等[22]对 12 具新鲜冰冻尸体标本进行肩部生物力学研究显示,未损伤 SSSC 系统条件下浮肩损伤关节稳定性下降 30%,而在肩胛颈骨折前提下分别切断 SSSC 系统中喙肩韧带及喙锁韧带,关节稳定性分别下降 44% 和 66%。通过了解韧带断裂导致肩关节稳定性丧失的特点,并整合有关文献[22-27],我们总结浮肩损伤的手术指征为:① 锁骨骨折端短缩/移位>5 mm,肩锁韧带断裂导致肩锁关节不稳定;② 肩胛颈骨折移位≥10 mm 或前后成角>40°;③ 肩胛体骨折移位明显或盂肱关节内有游离骨块;④ 肩胛颈合并关节盂骨折,关节盂骨块大于 1/3 关节盂,有塌陷、劈裂、台阶样移位>3 mm;⑤ 骨折移位或韧带损伤,肱骨头脱位,压迫周围血管、神经;⑥ 肩峰骨折,喙突韧带、喙肩韧带和喙锁韧带损伤;⑦ 肩胛冈骨折>5 mm 或粉碎性骨折不稳定。
浮肩损伤治疗应先处理危及患者生命体征的合并伤,患者在可耐受手术前提下,优先选择早期手术治疗。然而,目前对于选择单纯锁骨内固定或锁骨及肩胛骨双重内固定尚存争议。浮肩损伤患者多为务工人群,日常生活及工作对肩关节功能有较高需求,单纯锁骨内固定无法满足患者要求。有文献[28-29]报道锁骨骨折行锁骨髓内钉治疗后锁骨平均短缩 5 mm,故对浮肩损伤患者应排除使用弹性髓内钉固定锁骨。浮肩损伤选择双重内固定治疗主要是基于 SSSC 系统结构进行考虑。锁骨及肩胛骨外侧缘为肩关节系统稳定提供双重支撑,若单纯行锁骨内固定治疗,SSSC 下柱结构未予以固定,则其双柱固定不充分,在术后康复锻炼中可致肩胛骨移位加大、盂极角改变明显,导致术后远期功能恢复下降。Dombrowsky 等[30]研究比较了锁骨内固定与锁骨和肩胛骨双重内固定,发现对于 SSSC 严重损伤患者行锁骨及肩胛骨双重内固定效果更佳,但未涉及手术前后盂极角的纠正效果。Bozkurt 等[31]指出浮肩损伤时盂极角改变情况与患者术后 Constant-Murly 评分成负相关。而相关文献[8,32]报道通过锁骨及肩胛骨内固定复位盂极角,有利于患者术后功能恢复。所以当浮肩损伤行锁骨及肩胛骨双重内固定时,同时稳定 SSSC 上柱及下柱结构并复位盂极角,可使肌肉及韧带恢复正常生理长度,有效稳定 SSSC 生理结构,使患者术后功能获得良好恢复。本研究末次随访时肩关节功能 Constant-Murly 评分为(92.3±3.9)分,患者肩关节功能恢复满意。同时患者术后可早期功能锻炼,促进骨折愈合,降低冰冻肩、废用性肌萎缩及骨质疏松症、肩峰撞击综合征、创伤性关节炎等并发症的发生。
临床中肩胛骨骨折治疗常规使用 Judet 切口[16, 33-34],传统 Judet 切口由肩峰至肩胛骨内侧缘上角作水平切口,再由肩胛骨内侧缘延伸至肩胛下角,术中暴露三角肌、岗上肌、岗下肌、小圆肌,剥离范围广、出血量大、对肩胛骨血供破坏严重,影响术后切口愈合。并且 Judet 切口对 SSSC 下柱暴露不够充分,肩胛骨外侧缘复位难度大,内固定物植入困难,无法提供有效支撑;且术中肌肉剥离范围广,改变了生理结构及肌肉力臂,会影响后期肩关节外旋功能。本研究均行岗下肌与小圆肌间隙入路,与 Judet 切口相比,在视野暴露充分前提下减少了肌肉剥离范围,同时减少了出血量并缩短了手术时间。
综上述,采用锁骨及肩胛骨双重内固定联合术中复位盂极角治疗浮肩损伤可获得满意疗效。但是否需要固定肩胛骨上缘及内侧缘,仍有待进一步研究明确。
作者贡献:薛建强负责数据收集及论文撰写;贾乐、胡鑫负责病例筛选、随访;张瀚文负责数据整理及统计分析;鲁晓波、葛建华负责试验设计及实施,并对文章的知识性内容作批评性审阅。
利益冲突:所有作者声明,在课题研究和文章撰写过程中不存在利益冲突。
机构伦理问题:该临床研究的实施符合《赫尔辛基宣言》和西南医科大学附属医院对研究相关伦理要求。研究方案经西南医科大学附属医院临床试验伦理委员会批准(KY2020205)。
References
- 1.Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(6):587–594. doi: 10.1067/mse.2002.127096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Goss TP Double disruptions of the superior shoulder suspensory complex. J Orthop Trauma. 1993;7(2):99–106. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199304000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.McKee MD, Pedersen EM, Jones C, et al Deficits following nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2006;88(1):35–40. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kim KC, Rhee KJ, Shin HD, et al Can the glenopolar angle be used to predict outcome and treatment of the floating shoulder? J Trauma. 2008;64(1):174–178. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000240982.99842.b9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.van Noort A, van Kampen A Fractures of the scapula surgical neck: outcome after conservative treatment in 13 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005;125(10):696–700. doi: 10.1007/s00402-005-0044-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hess F, Zettl R, Smolen D, et al Decision-making for complex scapula and ipsilateral clavicle fractures: a review. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019;45(2):221–230. doi: 10.1007/s00068-018-0946-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Yadav V, Khare GN, Singh S, et al A prospective study comparing conservative with operative treatment in patients with a ‘floating shoulder’ including assessment of the prognostic value of the glenopolar angle. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(6):815–819. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B6.31060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lin TL, Li YF, Hsu CJ, et al Clinical outcome and radiographic change of ipsilateral scapular neck and clavicular shaft fracture: comparison of operation and conservative treatment. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015;10:9. doi: 10.1186/s13018-014-0141-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Wong KL, Ramsey ML, Williams GR Jr Scapular fractures//Norris TR. Orthopaedic knowledge update: shoulder and ellow. 2nd eds. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2002:227–236. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Churchill RS, Brems JJ, Kotschi H Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(4):327–332. doi: 10.1067/mse.2001.115269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kikuchi K, Itoi E, Yamamoto N, et al Scapular inclination and glenohumeral joint stability: a cadaveric study. J Orthop Sci. 2008;13(1):72–77. doi: 10.1007/s00776-007-1186-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Weishaupt D, Zanetti M, Nyffeler RW, et al Posterior glenoid rim deficiency in recurrent (atraumatic) posterior shoulder instability. Skeletal Radiol. 2000;29(4):204–210. doi: 10.1007/s002560050594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Constant CR, Murley AH A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160–164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Herscovici D, Fiennes AG, Allgöwer M, et al The floating shoulder: ipsilateral clavicle and scapular neck fractures. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1992;74(3):362–364. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.74B3.1587877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.贾健 肩胛骨骨折的分类及手术治疗. 中华骨科杂志. 2003;23(2):100–104. doi: 10.3760/j.issn:0253-2352.2003.02.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.付中国, 张堃 Judet 入路治疗肩胛骨骨折. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志. 2014;(1):63–68. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Meinberg EG, Agel J, Roberts CS, et al Fracture and dislocation classification compendium-2018. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32 Suppl 1:S1–S170. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Bartonícek J, Tucek M, Lunácek L Judet posterior approach to the scapula. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2008;75(6):429–435. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Gosens T, Speigner B, Minekus J. Fracture of the scapular body: functional outcome after conservative treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2009, 18(3): 443-448.
- 20.George DM, McKay BP, Jaarsma RL The long-term outcome of displaced mid-third clavicle fractures on scapular and shoulder function: variations between immediate surgery, delayed surgery, and nonsurgical management. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(5):669–676. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.09.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.吴康, 徐晓峰, 陈奇, 等 重建肩胛骨稳定性对手术治疗漂浮肩损伤效果的影响. 华中科技大学学报 (医学版) 2018;47(5):620–623. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Williams GR, Naranja J, Klimkiewicz J, et al The floating shoulder: a biomechanical basis for classification and management. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2001;83(8):1182–1187. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200108000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.周青, 李坤, 陈波, 等 漂浮肩不同治疗方式的疗效评价. 中国骨伤. 2016;29(9):847–852. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-0034.2016.09.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bartonicek J, Klika D, Tucek M Classification of scapular body fractures. Rozhl Chir. 2018;97(2):67–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.徐桂军 肩胛骨骨折及浮肩损伤的治疗. 国际骨科学杂志. 2018;39(5):267–271. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-7083.2018.05.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.陈健荣, 吴峰, 张宏宁, 等 两种内固定术式治疗浮肩损伤 60 例疗效对比. 中国矫形外科杂志. 2014;22(18):1711–1714. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Badam VK, Harsha TSS, Sankineani SR, et al Triple disruption of the superior shoulder suspensory complex-A case report. J Orthop Case Rep. 2019;9(3):39–42. doi: 10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.1410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Izadpanah K, Jaeger M, Maier D, et al The floating shoulder—clinical and radiological results after intramedullary stabilization of the clavicle in cases with minor displacement of the scapular neck fracture. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72(2):E8–13. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31822ad58a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Samy MA, Darwish AE Fixation of clavicle alone in floating shoulder injury: functional and radiological outcome. Acta Orthop Belg. 2017;83(2):292–296. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Dombrowsky AR, Boudreau S, Quade J, et al Clinical outcomes following conservative and surgical management of floating shoulder injuries: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29(3):634–642. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.09.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Bozkurt M, Can F, Kirdemir V, et al Conservative treatment of scapular neck fracture: the effect of stability and glenopolar angle on clinical outcome. Injury. 2005;36(10):1176–1181. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2004.09.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Morey VM, Chua KHZ, Ng ZD, et al Management of the floating shoulder: Does the glenopolar angle influence outcomes? A systematic review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104(1):53–58. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.李坤, 刘云鹏 两种入路治疗肩胛骨骨折的效果及对肩关节功能恢复的影响. 中南医学科学杂志. 2020;48(3):304–306, 319. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Porcellini G, Palladini P, Congia S, et al Functional outcomes and clinical strength assessment after infraspinatus-sparing surgical approach to scapular fracture: Does it really make a difference? Orthop Traumatol. 2018;19(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s10195-018-0509-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

