期刊文献+

股骨近端抗旋髓内钉与动力髋螺钉对老年不稳定股骨粗隆间骨折疗效的对比研究 被引量:103

Comparative study of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and dynamic hip screw in the unstable intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的比较股骨近端抗旋髓内钉与动力髋螺钉对老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效及并发症情况。方法2011年6月至2014年6月对新疆医科大学第五附属医院收治的158例老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者分别采用动力髋螺钉(DHS组68例)、股骨近端抗旋髓内钉(PFNA组90例)治疗。比较两组患者手术时间、住院天数、负重时间、骨折愈合时间、术中出血量及术后关节功能恢复情况。组间定量资料比较用t检验。应用χ2检验比较两组术后并发症的发生率。结果随访6~18个月(平均12.6个月)。两组在性别、年龄、伤后手术时间及骨折分型等方面差异均无统计学意义(χ^2=0.025,t=1.461、1.329,χ^2=2.070,均P〉0.05)。PFNA组手术时间、术中出血量、住院及负重时间均明显小于DHS组[分别为(47±14)比(114±20) min、(121±26)比(281±44) ml、(10.2±3.3)比(13.5±2.8)d、(29±8)比(53±10) d,t=8.376、6.669、2.176、2.664,均P〈0.05];PFNA组术后6个月的Harris评分明显高于DHS组[(90±17)比(87±15)分,t=2.337,P〈0.05],但两组的骨折愈合时间差异无统计学意义[(11.8±2.3)比(12.2±2.7)周,t=1.114,P〉0.05]。DHS组并发症发生率为16.2%,而PFNA组为7.8%,差异有统计学意义(χ^2=4.801,P〈0.05)。结论DHS适用于身体状况良好、骨折较稳定的老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者,而PFNA固定牢固、损伤小、术后并发症发生率低,适用广泛,在治疗股骨粗隆间骨折中更具优势。 ObjectiveTo compare the effect of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation and dynamic hip screw in treating the femoral intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients.MethodsFrom June 2011 to June 2014, totally 158 elderly patients of femoral intertrochanteric fracture were treated by surgery, among whom 68 cases were treated with dynamic hip screws (DHS), and 90 patients were treated with proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA). The operative time, hospitalization time, weight-bearing time, fracture-healing time, blood loss and the hip function score after the operation were compared between the two groups by using the t test; and the incidence of the postoperative complication was compared between the two groups by using the Chi square test.ResultsAll the patients were followed-up for 6 to 18 months (12. 6 months on average). There was no statistic differences in the gender, age, the surgical time after injury and the fracture type between the two groups (χ^2=0.025, t=1.461, 1.329, χ^2=2.070, all P〉0.05). While, the operative time, blood loss, hospitalization time and the weight-bearing time in the PFNA group were all significantly lower than those in the DHS group[(47±14) vs (114±20) min, (121±26) vs (281±44) ml, (10.2±3.3) vs (13.5±2.8) d, (29±8) vs (53±10) d, t=8.376, 6.669, 2.176, 2.664, all P〈0.05]; and the Harris hip score of 6 months post operation in PFNA group was significantly higher than that in the DHS group (90±17 vs 87±15, t=2.337, P〈0.05). However, no significant difference in fracture healing time was found between the two groups[(11.8±2.3) vs (12.2±2.7) weeks, t=1.114, P〉0.05]. Moreover, the incidence of complications in the DHS group was 16.2% while it was 7.8% in the PFNA group, the latter was obviously lower (χ^2=4.801, P〈0.05).ConclusionsDHS is suitable for the patients with good physical condition or for the patients with stable fracture types. While, PFNA has the advantages of firmly fixation, less tissue damage, lower complications and wide indications. So, it is superior in the femoral intertrochanteric fractures.
出处 《中华医学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2018年第5期357-361,共5页 National Medical Journal of China
关键词 股骨粗隆间骨折 老年人 动力髋螺钉 股骨近端抗旋髓内钉 Intertrochanteric fracture Aged Dynamic hip screw Proximal femoral nail anti-rotation
  • 相关文献

参考文献1

二级参考文献26

  • 1Nikolaou VS,Papathanasopoulos A,Giannoudis PV.What's newin the management of proximal femoral fractures[J].Injury,2008,39:12:1309-1318.
  • 2Liberati A,Altman DG,Tetzlaff J,et al.The PRISMA statementfor reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies thatevaluate health care interventions:explanation and elaboration[J].Ann Intern Med,2009,151:65-94.
  • 3Julian PT,Higgins SG.Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviewsof interventions 5.1.0[Updated March 2011] :the CochraneCollaboration,2011.
  • 4Xu YZ,Geng DC,Mao HQ,et al.A comparison of the proximalfemoral nail antirotation device and dynamic hip screw in thetreatment of unstable pertrochanteric fracture[J].J Int Med Res,2010,38:1266-1275.
  • 5Garg B,Marimuthu K,Kumar V,et al.Outcome of shortproximal femoral nail antirotation and dynamic hip screw forfixation of unstable trochanteric fractures:a randomisedprospective comparative trial[J].Hip International,2011,21:531-536.
  • 6Stem R,Lubbeke A,Suva D,et al.Prospective randomised studycomparing screw versus helical blade in the treatment of low-energytrochanteric fractures[J].Int Orthop,2011,35:1855-1861.
  • 7Zou J,Xu Y,Yang H.A comparison of proximal femoral nailantirotation and dynamic hip screw devices in trochanteric fractures[J].J Int Med Res,2009,37:1057-1064.
  • 8Simmonds MC,Higgins JP,Stewart LA,et al.Meta-analysis ofindividual patient data from randomized trials:a review of methodsused in practice[J].Clin Trials,2005,3:209-217.
  • 9张文聪.PFNA与DHS治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折对比分析[J].医学信息(中旬刊),2010,5(8):2088-2089. 被引量:6
  • 10童维.股骨近端抗旋髓内钉治疗老年不稳定股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效观察[J].实用预防医学,2010,17(9):1826-1828. 被引量:10

共引文献132

同被引文献705

引证文献103

二级引证文献414

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部