CAJ | 학술논문

目的：研究人工股骨头置换和全髋关节置换在治疗股骨颈骨折的临床疗效。方法选取该院2009年1月-2013年3月收治的股骨颈骨折患者70例,随机分为实验组和对照组。实验组患者35例,行人工股骨头置换术；对照组患者35例,行全髋关节置换术。术后比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、Harris评分以及术后并发症发生情况。结果实验组患者手术时间(60.23±11.33)、术中出血量(252.65±14.33)mL以及住院时间(8.24±1.34)h,对照组患者手术时间(101.28±10.98)、术中出血量(512.23±11.82)mL以及住院时间(15.34±2.24)h,经比较,两组患者各指标差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；两组患者术后3个月Harris评分无显著差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；术后6个月Harris评分对照组均优于实验组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；两组患者术后并发症差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论人工髋关节置换和全髋关节置换术是目前临床上治疗股骨颈骨折的主要手段,两种手术方式各具优缺点,临床上应根据患者情况选择合适的手术方式。
목적：연구인공고골두치환화전관관절치환재치료고골경골절적림상료효。방법선취해원2009년1월-2013년3월수치적고골경골절환자70례,수궤분위실험조화대조조。실험조환자35례,행인공고골두치환술；대조조환자35례,행전관관절치환술。술후비교량조환자적수술시간、술중출혈량、주원시간、Harris평분이급술후병발증발생정황。결과실험조환자수술시간(60.23±11.33)、술중출혈량(252.65±14.33)mL이급주원시간(8.24±1.34)h,대조조환자수술시간(101.28±10.98)、술중출혈량(512.23±11.82)mL이급주원시간(15.34±2.24)h,경비교,량조환자각지표차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)；량조환자술후3개월Harris평분무현저차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)；술후6개월Harris평분대조조균우우실험조,차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)；량조환자술후병발증차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)。결론인공관관절치환화전관관절치환술시목전림상상치료고골경골절적주요수단,량충수술방식각구우결점,림상상응근거환자정황선택합괄적수술방식。
Objective To study the clinical efficacy of artificial femoral head replacement and total hip replacement in the treat-ment of femoral neck fractures. Methods 70 cases with femoral neck fracture admitted in our hospital from January 2009 to March 2013 were selected and randomly divided into the experimental group and the control group. 35 cases in the experimental group were given artificial femoral head replacement, and 35 cases in the control group were given total hip replacement. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, the length of stay, Harris score and the incidence of postoperative complications of two groups were compared. Results The operative time of the experimental group was (60.23±11.33), intraoperative blood loss was (252.65 ±14.33) ml, the length of stay was (8.24±1.34)h, and that of the control group was (101.28±10.98), (512.23±11.82)ml, (15.34±2.24)h, respectively, by comparing, the differences in the indexes between the two groups were statistically significant (P<0.05);the differ-ence in Harris score between the groups 3 months after operation was not statistically significant (P>0.05), while that of the control group was better than that of the experimental group 6 months after operation, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05);there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Artificial hip re-placement and total hip replacement are the main means for the clinical treatment of femoral neck fracture at present, both have advantages and disadvantages, in clinical practice the surgical approach should be chosen appropriately based on the condition of patient.