股骨近端防旋髓内钉和动力髋螺钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的临床对比研究
DOI:
CSTR:
作者:
作者单位:

作者简介:

通讯作者:

中图分类号:

基金项目:


Comparative study of the PFNA and DHS treatment of intertrochanteric fractures
Author:
Affiliation:

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    目的  比较股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)和动力髋螺钉(DHS)治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效。 方法  回顾性分析2008年1月-2014年12月在长沙市第四医院采用DHS(DHS组,60例)和PFNA(PFNA组,64例)内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折患者124例,比较两组手术时间、切口长度、出血量、并发症发生率、骨折愈合时间、1年时Harris髋关节功能评分。结果  两组手术时间、切口长度、出血量分别为,DHS组:(87±4)min、(14.5±0.6)cm、(150±3)ml;PFNA组:(62±3)min、(7.8±0.4)cm、(100±2)ml,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P <0.05)。PFNA组58例,DHS组53例得到随访,骨折均愈合。平均愈合时间DHS组为(14.2±0.6)周,PFNA组为(12.4±0.4)周,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P >0.05)。DHS组有2例深部血肿,3例复位不满意,2例螺钉切割现象发生,并发症发生率13.2%;PFNA组有1例深部血肿,2例复位不满意,2例骨干劈裂骨折,1例螺钉切割现象,并发症发生率10.3%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P >0.05)。术后1年Harris评分髋关节功能DHS组优32例,良15例,优良率88.7%;PFNA组优37例,良14例,优良率87.9%。两组比较差异无统计学意义(P >0.05)。结论  动力髋螺钉和股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折,都能取得良好疗效,PFNA具有损伤小的优势,PFNA治疗股骨粗隆间骨折更为理想。

    Abstract:

    Objective To compare and assess the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures by proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) and dynamic hip screw (DHS). Methods Retrospective analyzed 124 patients of intertrochanteric fractures from January 2008 to December 2014 who were received internal fixation with DHS (DHS group, 60 cases) and PFNA (PFNA group, 64 cases). The operation time, length of incision, bleeding, the occurrence rate of complications, bony healing times, and Harris hip scores function at 1 year  after operation were evaluated and compared. Results The mean operation time, length of incision, bleeding of two groups in DHS group were (87±4) min, (14.5 ± 0.6) cm, (150 ± 3) ml, PFNA group: (62 ± 3) min, (7.8 ± 0.4) cm, (100 ± 2) ml respectively. There were significant difference between two groups (P < 0.05). In the study, 58 cases of PFNA group and 53 cases of the DHS group were followed-up, all the fracture healed well. The mean healing time in DHS group in (14.2±0.6) weeks, PFNA group (12.4 ± 0.4) weeks, and there were no significant difference between two groups (P > 0.05). In DHS group, deep hematoma occurred in 2 cases, the reduction was unsatisfactory in 3 cases, knifing of screw occurred in 2 cases. The complication occurrence rate was 13.2%. While in PFNA group, there was 1 case with deep hematoma, 2 cases with unsatisfactory reduction, 2 cases with split fracture and 1 case with knifing of screw. The occurrence rate of the complication was 10.3%. There was no significant difference between two groups (P > 0.05). According to one year Harris hip scores, the excellent cases were 32, good cases were 15, the excellent and good rates were 88.7% in DHS group, while in PFNA group, the excellent cases were 37, good cases were 14, the excellent and good rates were 87.9%, there was no significant difference between two groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions The clinical effect is true and perfect in the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture by DHS and PFNA. PFNA has the advantage of less damage, and it is a more effective method for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文

向忠,刘洪,李浩波,周贤超,唐长友,贺建军,凌旻,李智勇.股骨近端防旋髓内钉和动力髋螺钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的临床对比研究[J].中国现代医学杂志,2016,(16):92-96

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:2016-02-13
  • 最后修改日期:
  • 录用日期:
  • 在线发布日期: 2016-08-31
  • 出版日期:
文章二维码