中华创伤骨科杂志
中華創傷骨科雜誌
중화창상골과잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA
2011年
2期
130-134
,共5页
髋骨折%骨折固定术,内%内固定器
髖骨摺%骨摺固定術,內%內固定器
관골절%골절고정술,내%내고정기
Hip fractures%Fracture fixation,internal%Internal fixators
目的 比较股骨近端锁定加压钢板(LPFP)、亚洲型髋关节治疗系统（亚洲型IMHS）、InterTAN治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的疗效。方法 回顾性分析2008年2月至2009年12月收治并获得随访的185例老年股骨转子间骨折患者的临床资料，分别采用LPFP(A组，95例)、亚洲型IMHS(B组，52例)、InterTAN(C组，38例)治疗；比较3组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术中X线透视次数、住院费用、内固定失败例数及术后髋关节Harris功能评分。结果 所有患者术后获6～28个月（平均14.5个月）随访。B、C组与A组比较，手术时间短、术中出血量少、内固定失败例数少，差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。B、C组比A组术中X线透视次数多、住院费用高，差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。B、C两组的手术时间、术中出血量、术中X线透视次数、住院费用、内固定失败例数、Harris髋关节功能评分比较，差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。B、C组与A组的Harris髋关节功能优良率比较，差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05)。结论 治疗老年股骨转子间骨折，亚洲型IMHS和InterTAN的疗效均优于LPFP，但亚洲型IMHS和InterTAN的疗效无明显差异。
目的 比較股骨近耑鎖定加壓鋼闆(LPFP)、亞洲型髖關節治療繫統（亞洲型IMHS）、InterTAN治療老年股骨轉子間骨摺的療效。方法 迴顧性分析2008年2月至2009年12月收治併穫得隨訪的185例老年股骨轉子間骨摺患者的臨床資料，分彆採用LPFP(A組，95例)、亞洲型IMHS(B組，52例)、InterTAN(C組，38例)治療；比較3組患者的手術時間、術中齣血量、術中X線透視次數、住院費用、內固定失敗例數及術後髖關節Harris功能評分。結果 所有患者術後穫6～28箇月（平均14.5箇月）隨訪。B、C組與A組比較，手術時間短、術中齣血量少、內固定失敗例數少，差異均有統計學意義(P＜0.05)。B、C組比A組術中X線透視次數多、住院費用高，差異均有統計學意義(P＜0.05)。B、C兩組的手術時間、術中齣血量、術中X線透視次數、住院費用、內固定失敗例數、Harris髖關節功能評分比較，差異均無統計學意義(P＞0.05)。B、C組與A組的Harris髖關節功能優良率比較，差異有統計學意義(P＜0.05)。結論 治療老年股骨轉子間骨摺，亞洲型IMHS和InterTAN的療效均優于LPFP，但亞洲型IMHS和InterTAN的療效無明顯差異。
목적 비교고골근단쇄정가압강판(LPFP)、아주형관관절치료계통（아주형IMHS）、InterTAN치료노년고골전자간골절적료효。방법 회고성분석2008년2월지2009년12월수치병획득수방적185례노년고골전자간골절환자적림상자료，분별채용LPFP(A조，95례)、아주형IMHS(B조，52례)、InterTAN(C조，38례)치료；비교3조환자적수술시간、술중출혈량、술중X선투시차수、주원비용、내고정실패례수급술후관관절Harris공능평분。결과 소유환자술후획6～28개월（평균14.5개월）수방。B、C조여A조비교，수술시간단、술중출혈량소、내고정실패례수소，차이균유통계학의의(P＜0.05)。B、C조비A조술중X선투시차수다、주원비용고，차이균유통계학의의(P＜0.05)。B、C량조적수술시간、술중출혈량、술중X선투시차수、주원비용、내고정실패례수、Harris관관절공능평분비교，차이균무통계학의의(P＞0.05)。B、C조여A조적Harris관관절공능우량솔비교，차이유통계학의의(P＜0.05)。결론 치료노년고골전자간골절，아주형IMHS화InterTAN적료효균우우LPFP，단아주형IMHS화InterTAN적료효무명현차이。
ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of 3 internal fixations, locking proximal femoral plate (LPFP), ASIAN IMHS and InterTAN, for intertrochanteric femoral fractures in elderly patients.MethodsA retrospective study was done to analyse 185 elderly patients who had been treated for intertrochanteric femoral fractures from February 2008 to December 2009 in our hospital and fully followed up.They were treated with LPFP (group A, 95 cases), ASIAN IMHS (group B, 52 cases) and InterTAN (group C, 38 cases) . Statistical analyses were conducted to compare the 3 groups in operative time, blood loss,fluoroscopy exposure, hospital charges, intrraoperative complications and functional outcome (Harris hip score).Results The average follow-up was 14. 5 months(from 6 to 28 months). Compared with group A, groups B and C showed significant advantages in operative time, blood 1oss and functional outcome but significant disadvantages in fluoroscopy exposure and hospital charges ( P ＜ 0. 05 ). Compared with group A,groups B and C had significant fewer implant failures ( P ＜ 0. 05). There were no significant differences in all the indexes between groups B and C( P ＞ 0. 05) .Conclusions The ASIAN IMHS and InterTAN appear to be more reliable than LPFP for the treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly.There appear to be no significant differences between ASIAN IMHS and InterTAN.
