CAJ | 학술논문

目的探讨解剖型钢板(ACP)和锁定型钢板(LCP)两种不同内固定方法治疗老年人股骨转子间骨折的优缺点.方法收集武汉市第十一医院自2006年8月至2011年3月老年人股骨转子间骨折手术病例90例,行ACP固定47例,LCP固定43例.比较两组手术时间、出血量、骨折愈合时间、并发症发生情况.结果 ACP组手术时间为(98.8±31.2)min、出血量为(350.7±123.9)ml、骨折愈合时间为(95±15)d,颈干角为(132.0 ±4.9).,4例退钉,LCP组手术时间为(105.6±36.3)min、出血量为(364.8±119.5) ml、骨折愈合时间为(93±14)d,颈干角为(135.0±1.5)°,无退钉.两组在手术时间、出血量、愈合时间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),颈干角、退钉差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).结论相对于解剖型钢板,锁定型钢板固定治疗老年人股骨转子间骨折是一种比较好的内固定方法.
목적 탐토해부형강판(ACP)화쇄정형강판(LCP)량충불동내고정방법치료노년인고골전자간골절적우결점.방법 수집무한시제십일의원자2006년8월지2011년3월노년인고골전자간골절수술병례90례,행ACP고정47례,LCP고정43례.비교량조수술시간、출혈량、골절유합시간、병발증발생정황.결과 ACP조수술시간위(98.8±31.2)min、출혈량위(350.7±123.9)ml、골절유합시간위(95±15)d,경간각위(132.0 ±4.9).,4례퇴정,LCP조수술시간위(105.6±36.3)min、출혈량위(364.8±119.5) ml、골절유합시간위(93±14)d,경간각위(135.0±1.5)°,무퇴정.량조재수술시간、출혈량、유합시간차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05),경간각、퇴정차이유통계학의의(P＜0.01).결론 상대우해부형강판,쇄정형강판고정치료노년인고골전자간골절시일충비교호적내고정방법.
Objective To compare the therapeutic effect between anatomical compression plate (ACP) and locking compression plate (LCP) in treatment of old patients with intertrochanteric fractures.Methods Selected 90 cases of intertrochanteric fractures experienced ACP internal fixation (47 cases) or LCP internal fixation (43 cases) from August 2006 to March 2011,and compare operation time,blood loss,fracture healing time,complications of the two groups.Results ACP group:operation time (98.8 ±31.2) min,blood loss (350.7 ± 123.9) ml,fracture healing time (95 ± 15) day,neck shaft angle (132.0 ± 4.9) °,cut-out (4 cases).LCP group:operation time (105.6 ± 36.3) min,blood loss (364.8 ± 119.5) ml,fracture healing time (93 ± 14) day,neck shaft angle (135.0 ± 1.5) °,cut-out (none).There was no statistical difference on operation time,blood loss,fracture healing time between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05).The difference was significant on neck shaft angle and cut-out between the two groups (P ＜ 0.01).Conclusion Compared with ACP internal fixation,LCP intemal fixation is good method for the treatment of old patients with intertrochanteric fractures.