External Fixator For The Treatment Of Distal Radius Fracture Merge Joint Dysfunction Of Rehabilitation Intervention

Objective Refers to from the distal radius fractures of the distal radiusarticular surface fractures within3cm, it is the clinical common orthopedicdiseases, accounts for about17%of the human body fracture，such found inelderly patients, most associated with varying degrees of osteoporosis.Considering patient’s age, physical condition, the patient’s needs and fracturecharacteristics (Including the type, degree of shift, stability, etc), it can givethe needle was cast or splint, steel plate, and the treatment such as externalfixator. More external fixator due to its wide adaptation, small trauma and theoperation is simple, fixed firmly, and the advantages of easy removal is widelyused in distal radius fracture reduction and fixation. But longterm fixed andpatients do not take the initiative to activity lead to go except fixed after allappeared different degree of the wrists, elbows and shoulder joints stiffness,restricted movement. Therefore external fixator of distal radius fracturehealing of postoperative recovery of joint activities more and more cause theattention of the patient and doctor. Previous clinical treatment is to requiremore patients return to daily life and to exercise the joints, in order to restorejoint activities, it is not have a system of rehabilitation treatment andrehabilitation professional guidance, the outpatient followup results were notsatisfied. This research through the microwave therapy in the rehabilitationmedical professional operation under the loose wrist, elbow, shoulder jointtechnology of rehabilitation therapies, explore external fixator for thetreatment of distal radius fractures of postoperative rehabilitation, preventionand treatment of post operative shoulder, elbow, wrist joint stiffness, restore itsfunction effectively.Methods Collect68exception fixator for the treatment of distal radius fracture surgery patients, the male29cases, female39, minimum age13, thelargest age87years old, the average age of51.03years, divided them into twogroups at random(Including the experimental group and the control group), allpatients after two stages(The first phase of external fixator for fracture fixationand After the second stage except for fixed frame), outer fixator group patientsafter the first phase, the given microwave therapy with elbow, shoulder jointloosening therapy for a period of treatment2weeks, In the2weekendmeasurement elbow, shoulder joint activities in all directions. Fractures healedexcept to wrist microwave therapy is administered after fixation with loosewrist joint technology therapy for a period of treatment2weeks, In the2weekend measuring wrist joint activities in all directions. The patients in thecourse of daily life activities under guidance of physician. The control groupdid not give any intervention, only in the daily life activities under guidance ofphysician. To each joint activities to assess curative effect.Result1. The first phase of the control group and experimental group ofshoulder, elbow joint range of motion after T-examination, statistical valuesp﹤0.01, the difference was statistically significant. The direction of shoulder,elbow each activity were the result of the experimental group is better thanthat of control group. Instructions and early exercise with microwave therapycan effectively prevent the shoulder and elbow joint stiffness, which laid afoundation for further rehabilitation intervention.2. The second phase of the control group and experimental group ofshoulder, elbow, wrist range of motion after t examination, statistical valuesp＜0.01, the difference was statistically significant. The direction of shoulder,elbow and wrist joints each activity were the results of the experimental groupis better than that of control group.Experiments confirm after2weeks ofrehabilitation intervention treatment, further the prevention and treatment ofexperimental group joint dysfunction significantly.3. The control group and experimental group of fracture healing time(except to a fixed time), experimental group is less than the control group, P＜0.01, the difference was statistically significant. Explain experimental fracture healing earlier than the control group.