中国基层医药
中國基層醫藥
중국기층의약
CHINESE JOURNAL OF PRIMARY MEDICINE AND PHARMACY
2014年
11期
1690-1691
,共2页
股骨骨折%股骨头置换术%动力髋螺钉内固定术
股骨骨摺%股骨頭置換術%動力髖螺釘內固定術
고골골절%고골두치환술%동력관라정내고정술
Femoral fractures%Femoral head replacement%Dynamic hip screws
目的 比较人工股骨头置换术(FHR)和股骨动力髋螺钉内固定术(DHS)治疗高龄不稳定股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效.方法 157例患者按随机数字表法分为两组,FHR组采用双极人工股骨头置换术治疗,DHS组采用动力髋螺钉内固定术,比较两组Harris疗效和手术时间、失血量、下地时间、再手术率和并发症等.结果FHR组优良率83.33％,DHS组优良率73.42％,两组优良率差异有统计学意义(Ridit Z=10.654,P=0.000);FHR组手术时间、术后Harris评分大于DHS组,失血量和下地时间小于DHS组,差异均有统计学意义(t=16.254,P=0.000;t =25.511,P=0.000;t =20.631,P=0.000;t =26.584,P=0.000);DHS组共发生并发症15例(18.99％),再手术率5.13％;FHR组出现并发症3例(3.85％),再手术率0.00％,两组并发症发生率和再手术率差异有统计学意义(P=0.006).结论与DHS相比,FHR具有更高的疗效和安全性.
目的 比較人工股骨頭置換術(FHR)和股骨動力髖螺釘內固定術(DHS)治療高齡不穩定股骨粗隆間骨摺的療效.方法 157例患者按隨機數字錶法分為兩組,FHR組採用雙極人工股骨頭置換術治療,DHS組採用動力髖螺釘內固定術,比較兩組Harris療效和手術時間、失血量、下地時間、再手術率和併髮癥等.結果FHR組優良率83.33％,DHS組優良率73.42％,兩組優良率差異有統計學意義(Ridit Z=10.654,P=0.000);FHR組手術時間、術後Harris評分大于DHS組,失血量和下地時間小于DHS組,差異均有統計學意義(t=16.254,P=0.000;t =25.511,P=0.000;t =20.631,P=0.000;t =26.584,P=0.000);DHS組共髮生併髮癥15例(18.99％),再手術率5.13％;FHR組齣現併髮癥3例(3.85％),再手術率0.00％,兩組併髮癥髮生率和再手術率差異有統計學意義(P=0.006).結論與DHS相比,FHR具有更高的療效和安全性.
목적 비교인공고골두치환술(FHR)화고골동력관라정내고정술(DHS)치료고령불은정고골조륭간골절적료효.방법 157례환자안수궤수자표법분위량조,FHR조채용쌍겁인공고골두치환술치료,DHS조채용동력관라정내고정술,비교량조Harris료효화수술시간、실혈량、하지시간、재수술솔화병발증등.결과FHR조우량솔83.33％,DHS조우량솔73.42％,량조우량솔차이유통계학의의(Ridit Z=10.654,P=0.000);FHR조수술시간、술후Harris평분대우DHS조,실혈량화하지시간소우DHS조,차이균유통계학의의(t=16.254,P=0.000;t =25.511,P=0.000;t =20.631,P=0.000;t =26.584,P=0.000);DHS조공발생병발증15례(18.99％),재수술솔5.13％;FHR조출현병발증3례(3.85％),재수술솔0.00％,량조병발증발생솔화재수술솔차이유통계학의의(P=0.006).결론여DHS상비,FHR구유경고적료효화안전성.
Objective To compare the clinical effect of femoral head replacement(FHR) and dynamic hip screwsbipolar(DHS) for femoral neck fractures in elderly patients.Methods 157 cases were randomly divided into the two groups.FHR group was treated by bipolar prosthetic replacement and DHS group was treated by dynamic hip screw fixation.The Harris effect,blood loss,operation time,shimoji time,reoperation rate and complications were com pared between the two groups.Results The excellent rate was 83.33 ％ in FHR group,that was 73.42％ in the DHS group,there was significant difference between two groups(Ridit Z =10.654,P =0.000).The operation time and Harris score in the FHR group were higher than those in DHS group,the blood loss and shimoji time in FHR group were lower than those in DHS group,the differences were statistically significant (t =16.254,P =0.000 ; t =25.511,P =0.000 ; t =20.631,P =0.000 ; t =26.584,P =0.000).The incidence rates of complication and reoperation in FHR group were 3.85％,0.00％,which were significantly lower than those in DHS group(18.99％,5.13％) (P =0.006).Conclusion FHR has significant efficacy and higher security for femoral neck fractures in elderly patients compared with DHS,it is worthy of application in clinical.
