CAJ | 학술논문

目的比较两种不同的手术方法治疗股骨转子间骨折的疗效,评价每一种手术方法在治疗股骨转子间骨折的优劣并探讨治疗股骨转子间骨折的最佳方法.方法选择在本院骨科门诊治疗的股骨转子间骨折患者60例,并随机分为DHS、PFN两组,每组30例,两组患者采取不同的手术方法,DHS组(30例)采用动力髋螺钉;PFN组(30例)采用股骨近端髓内钉,比较分析两组的骨折愈合时间、术后髋关节功能恢复程度以及并发症的发生等等.结果 60例患者均获得了随访.DHS组骨折愈合时间(13.09 ±2.17)周,PFN组骨折愈合时间(10.35±3.28)周,比较差异有显著性(P<0.05), DHS组功能恢复优良率84.34%,PFN组优良率90.00%,比较差异有显著性(P<0.05), DHS组并发症发生率16.67%,PFN组并发症发生率13.34%,比较差异有显著性(P<0.05).结论股骨转子问骨折的手术治疗是最佳的选择,且PFN在疗效上优于DHS.
목적 비교량충불동적수술방법치료고골전자간골절적료효,평개매일충수술방법재치료고골전자간골절적우렬병탐토치료고골전자간골절적최가방법.방법 선택재본원골과문진치료적고골전자간골절환자60례,병수궤분위DHS、PFN량조,매조30례,량조환자채취불동적수술방법,DHS조(30례)채용동력관라정;PFN조(30례)채용고골근단수내정,비교분석량조적골절유합시간、술후관관절공능회복정도이급병발증적발생등등.결과 60례환자균획득료수방.DHS조골절유합시간(13.09 ±2.17)주,PFN조골절유합시간(10.35±3.28)주,비교차이유현저성(P<0.05), DHS조공능회복우량솔84.34%,PFN조우량솔90.00%,비교차이유현저성(P<0.05), DHS조병발증발생솔16.67%,PFN조병발증발생솔13.34%,비교차이유현저성(P<0.05).결론 고골전자문골절적수술치료시최가적선택,차PFN재료효상우우DHS.
Objective To compare the efficicay of two surgical procedures for intertrochanteric fracture, and to explore the best surgical treatment for intertrochanteric fracture. Methods 60 patients were randomly assigned to receive surgical procedure either with dynamic hip screws (DHS group, 30 patients) or with proximal femoral nails (PFN group, 30 patients) The healing time of fracture, degree of postoperative functional recovery of the hip joint, and incidence of complications. Results All of the patients were followed up. The healing time of fracture, rate of ideal functional recovery of the hip joint, and incidence of complications differed significantly between DHS group and PFN group([13.09±2.17] weeks vs. [10.35 ± 3.28] weeks, 84.34%, vs. 90.00%, 16.67% vs. 13.34%; P<0.05 for three comparisons). Conclusions Surgery is the optimal option in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. The procedure with proximal femoral nails is superior to that with dynamic hip screws.