内蒙古医科大学学报
內矇古醫科大學學報
내몽고의과대학학보
Journal of Inner Mongolia Medical University
2014年
3期
217-221
,共5页
股骨头置换%股骨粗隆间骨折%近端髓内钉
股骨頭置換%股骨粗隆間骨摺%近耑髓內釘
고골두치환%고골조륭간골절%근단수내정
femoral head replacement%intertrochanteric fracture%proximal intramedullary nail
目的：比较加长柄股骨头置换与股骨近端髓内钉( PFN)治疗高龄股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效。方法：选取在我院行手术治疗的高龄股骨粗隆间骨折病人113例作为研究对象,加长柄股骨头置换组(置换组)58例和PFN组55例,对比分析2组病人的临床疗效及并发症等相关指标。结果：PFN组失血量为(201.5依38.5) ml,住院时间为(6.8依1.9)d,置换组失血量为(863.0依87.2)mL,住院时间为(16.5依4.8)d,经t检验,差异有统计学意义,P<0.05；PFN组输血率为31.0%,置换组为12.7%,经字2检验,差异有统计学意义,P<0.05；PFN 组末次Harris评分为(84.6依8.5)分,置换组为(89.5依7.2)分,经t检验,差异无统计学意义,P>0.05；置换组优良率为70.7%,PFN组优良率为78.2%,经字2检验,差异无统计学意义,P>0.05；置换组并发症总发生率为15.5%,PFN组为7.3%,经字2检验,差异有统计学意义,P<0.05。结论：两种术式治疗高龄股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效均较好,但PFN内固定法术后并发症发生率低于置换组,较适合治疗高龄股骨粗隆间骨折。
目的：比較加長柄股骨頭置換與股骨近耑髓內釘( PFN)治療高齡股骨粗隆間骨摺的療效。方法：選取在我院行手術治療的高齡股骨粗隆間骨摺病人113例作為研究對象,加長柄股骨頭置換組(置換組)58例和PFN組55例,對比分析2組病人的臨床療效及併髮癥等相關指標。結果：PFN組失血量為(201.5依38.5) ml,住院時間為(6.8依1.9)d,置換組失血量為(863.0依87.2)mL,住院時間為(16.5依4.8)d,經t檢驗,差異有統計學意義,P<0.05；PFN組輸血率為31.0%,置換組為12.7%,經字2檢驗,差異有統計學意義,P<0.05；PFN 組末次Harris評分為(84.6依8.5)分,置換組為(89.5依7.2)分,經t檢驗,差異無統計學意義,P>0.05；置換組優良率為70.7%,PFN組優良率為78.2%,經字2檢驗,差異無統計學意義,P>0.05；置換組併髮癥總髮生率為15.5%,PFN組為7.3%,經字2檢驗,差異有統計學意義,P<0.05。結論：兩種術式治療高齡股骨粗隆間骨摺的臨床療效均較好,但PFN內固定法術後併髮癥髮生率低于置換組,較適閤治療高齡股骨粗隆間骨摺。
목적：비교가장병고골두치환여고골근단수내정( PFN)치료고령고골조륭간골절적료효。방법：선취재아원행수술치료적고령고골조륭간골절병인113례작위연구대상,가장병고골두치환조(치환조)58례화PFN조55례,대비분석2조병인적림상료효급병발증등상관지표。결과：PFN조실혈량위(201.5의38.5) ml,주원시간위(6.8의1.9)d,치환조실혈량위(863.0의87.2)mL,주원시간위(16.5의4.8)d,경t검험,차이유통계학의의,P<0.05；PFN조수혈솔위31.0%,치환조위12.7%,경자2검험,차이유통계학의의,P<0.05；PFN 조말차Harris평분위(84.6의8.5)분,치환조위(89.5의7.2)분,경t검험,차이무통계학의의,P>0.05；치환조우량솔위70.7%,PFN조우량솔위78.2%,경자2검험,차이무통계학의의,P>0.05；치환조병발증총발생솔위15.5%,PFN조위7.3%,경자2검험,차이유통계학의의,P<0.05。결론：량충술식치료고령고골조륭간골절적림상료효균교호,단PFN내고정법술후병발증발생솔저우치환조,교괄합치료고령고골조륭간골절。
Objective:To compare the effect of long-stem femoral head replacement and proximal femoral intramedullary nail ( PFN ) for treatment of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. Methods:113 cases of intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients treated in our hospital were studied. 58 cases were treated with long-stem femoral head(replacement group),while 55 cases were treated with PFN ( PFN group ) . The two treatment groups were compared with regard to clinical curative effect and complications. Results:In PFN group,blood loss was(201. 5±38. 5)ml and hospital stay was(6. 8+1. 9) d. In replacement group,blood loss was(863. 0±87. 2) ml,and hospital stay was (16.5±4.8) d. There was significant difference between two groups by t-test(P<0.05). Blood transfusion rate in PFN group was 31%, while replacement group was 12 . 7%. There was significant difference by chi-square test(P<0. 05). In PFN group,the last Harris score was(84. 6±8. 5)points, while replacement group was (89. 5±7. 2) points. There was no significant difference between two groups(P>0. 05). The excellent rate in PFN group and replacement group were 78. 2% and 70. 7%, respectively. The occurrence rate of complications were 7. 3% and 15. 5%, respectively. There was significant difference between two groups(P<0. 05) by chi-square test. Conclusion:The treatment of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients by long-stem femoral head replacement and PFN are both good. But the incidence of complications of PFN fixation is lower than that of replacement group. It is more suitable for treatment of senile intertrochanteric fracture.
