目的　比较解剖锁定钢板与普通钢板在治疗涉及关节面的老年性桡骨远端骨折中的临床效果。  方法　选择2010年6月~2013年9月我们收治的涉及关节面的老年性桡骨远端骨折患者96例，根据骨折程度分为对照组50例和观察组46例。观察组以解剖锁定钢板行内固定术，对照组行普通钢板内固定，对两组患者的术后康复治疗开始时间、骨折愈合时间及临床疗效进行比较。  结果　观察组患者术后康复治疗开始时间(1.22±0.71)d明显短于对照组(2.34±1.07) d，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；观察组患者术后骨折愈合时间(66.67±12.43)d明显短于对照组(74.47±15.63) d，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；观察组患者的优良率(94.0％)明显高于对照组(71.7％)，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。  结论　解剖锁定钢板内固定治疗涉及关节面的老年性桡骨远端骨折与普通钢板内固定相比，具有固定可靠，临床效果好，康复治疗时间缩短等优点。

Objective　To compare clinical effect of anatomical locking plate fixation and ordinary steel fixation for treating distal radius fracture involving articular surface.　Methods　From June 2010 to September 2013，a total of 96 cases of patients who suffered distal radius fracture involving articular surface in our hospital were divided into the control group and the observation group according to the degree of fracture, with 50 patients in the control group, 46 patients in the observation group. Patients in the observation group was treated by anatomical locking plate fixation, while patients in the control group was treated by ordinary steel fixation. Time for beginning of postoperative rehabilitation, fracture healing time and clinical effect of the two groups were compared.　Results　Time for beginning of postoperative rehabilitation in the observation group was significantly earlier than that of the control group (1.22±0.71 d vs 2.34±1.07 d, P<0.05). Fracture healing time of observation group was significantly shorter than that of control group( 66.67±12.43 d vs 74.47±15.63 d, P<0.05). The excellent-good rate of observation group (94.0%) was higher than that of control group (71.7%), the difference being statistically significant (P<0.05).　Conclusion　Compared with ordinary steel fixation, anatomical locking plate was more reliable in fixation and had better clinical result on patients sustain distal radius fracture involving articular surface.