摘要
目的探讨骨水泥型与生物型假体髋关节置换术治疗不稳定型老年股骨颈骨折的疗效。方法于2013年1月至2015年1月在选择初次接受全髋关节置换手术的不稳定型老年股骨颈骨折患者60例,随机分为骨水泥型组和生物型假体组,各30例,分别行相应假体髋关节置换术,术后随访6个月。比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、住院天数、术后并发症发生情况、术后髋关节脱位发生情况和髋关节Harris评分。结果骨水泥型组和生物型组手术时间、术中出血量比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),骨水泥型组住院时间短于生物型组(P<0.05)。骨水泥型组术后并发症总发生率高于生物型组(P<0.05)。术后1个月和6个月时,两组患者均出现髋关节脱位的情况。术后1个月和6个月时,骨水泥型组Harris评分高于生物型组(P<0.05)。结论与生物型假体髋关节置换术相比,骨水泥型假体髋关节置换术不增加手术时间和术中出血量,患者住院时间更短,在改善患者术后早期髋关节功能方面有重要作用,但更易发生并发症。
Objective To observe the clinical effect of cemented prosthesis and cement‐less prosthesis in the treatment of old aged femoral neck fracture .Methods From Jan .2013 to Jan .2015 ,60 old patients with femoral neck fracture were randomly divided into cemented prosthesis group and cement‐less prosthesis group .Relevant index were compared between the two groups .Results The operative time and blood loss were without significant differences between the two groups （P〉0 .05） ,but the time for hospital stay of cemented prosthesis group was less than cement‐less prosthesis group（P〈 0 .05） .The Harris scores ,detected one month and six months after operation ,of cemented prosthesis group were significantly higher than cement‐less prosthesis group （ P〈0 .05） .Conclusion Compared with cement‐less prosthesis ,cemented prosthesis might not increase the operative time and blood loss ,and could decrease the time of hospital stay and improve the function of hip joint ,but might be with higher rate of complica‐tions .
出处
《检验医学与临床》
CAS
2016年第13期1826-1828,共3页
Laboratory Medicine and Clinic
