中国组织工程研究
中國組織工程研究
중국조직공정연구
Journal of Clinical Rehabilitative Tissue Engineering Research
2015年
13期
1979-1983
,共5页
植入物%人工假体%股骨转子间骨折%髓内钉%髋关节置换%内固定%Harris评分%临床疗效
植入物%人工假體%股骨轉子間骨摺%髓內釘%髖關節置換%內固定%Harris評分%臨床療效
식입물%인공가체%고골전자간골절%수내정%관관절치환%내고정%Harris평분%림상료효
Hip Fractures%Femoral Fractures%Bone Nails%Arthroplasty,Replacement,Hip
背景：股骨转子间骨折多发于骨质疏松的老年患者，常用的治疗方法有髓内、外固定治疗和关节置换等。目的：对比股骨近端髓内钉与人工髋关节置换两种方法治疗股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效。方法：将菏泽市立医院在2009年8月至2013年8月收治的股骨转子间骨折患者198例，分为股骨近端髓内钉固定组和人工髋关节置换组，各99例。股骨近端髓内钉固定组和人工髋关节置换组患者分别采用股骨近端髓内针固定和人工髋关节置换治疗。结果与结论：股骨近端髓内钉固定组患者手术时间、术中出血量和住院时间均显著少于人工髋关节置换组，但骨折愈合时间显著长于人工髋关节置换组；但2组患者治疗后1年时的Harris评分、髋关节功能优良率和总并发症发生率差异无显著性意义。提示采用股骨近端髓内钉固定和人工髋关节置换治疗老年股骨近端骨折均有良好的生物相容性，均可取得良好的临床效果，2种方法虽各有优缺点，临床上均可根据患者病情需要制定合适的治疗方案。
揹景：股骨轉子間骨摺多髮于骨質疏鬆的老年患者，常用的治療方法有髓內、外固定治療和關節置換等。目的：對比股骨近耑髓內釘與人工髖關節置換兩種方法治療股骨轉子間骨摺的臨床療效。方法：將菏澤市立醫院在2009年8月至2013年8月收治的股骨轉子間骨摺患者198例，分為股骨近耑髓內釘固定組和人工髖關節置換組，各99例。股骨近耑髓內釘固定組和人工髖關節置換組患者分彆採用股骨近耑髓內針固定和人工髖關節置換治療。結果與結論：股骨近耑髓內釘固定組患者手術時間、術中齣血量和住院時間均顯著少于人工髖關節置換組，但骨摺愈閤時間顯著長于人工髖關節置換組；但2組患者治療後1年時的Harris評分、髖關節功能優良率和總併髮癥髮生率差異無顯著性意義。提示採用股骨近耑髓內釘固定和人工髖關節置換治療老年股骨近耑骨摺均有良好的生物相容性，均可取得良好的臨床效果，2種方法雖各有優缺點，臨床上均可根據患者病情需要製定閤適的治療方案。
배경：고골전자간골절다발우골질소송적노년환자，상용적치료방법유수내、외고정치료화관절치환등。목적：대비고골근단수내정여인공관관절치환량충방법치료고골전자간골절적림상료효。방법：장하택시립의원재2009년8월지2013년8월수치적고골전자간골절환자198례，분위고골근단수내정고정조화인공관관절치환조，각99례。고골근단수내정고정조화인공관관절치환조환자분별채용고골근단수내침고정화인공관관절치환치료。결과여결론：고골근단수내정고정조환자수술시간、술중출혈량화주원시간균현저소우인공관관절치환조，단골절유합시간현저장우인공관관절치환조；단2조환자치료후1년시적Harris평분、관관절공능우량솔화총병발증발생솔차이무현저성의의。제시채용고골근단수내정고정화인공관관절치환치료노년고골근단골절균유량호적생물상용성，균가취득량호적림상효과，2충방법수각유우결점，림상상균가근거환자병정수요제정합괄적치료방안。
BACKGROUND:Intertrochanteric fracture is often found in osteoporotic elderly patients, the commonly used treatment includes intramedul ary and extramedul ary fixations, and joint replacement. OBJECTIVE:To compare the clinical effect of proximal femoral intramedul ary nail and hip arthroplasty in the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture. METHODS:198 patients of intertrochanteric fracture recruited from Heze Municipal Hospital from August 2009 to August 2013, were divided into two groups. Each group had 99 patients, receiving proximal femoral intramedul ary nail and hip arthroplasty, respectively. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:The average operation time, intraoperative blood loss and hospital stays in the proximal femoral intramedul ary nail group were significantly shorter, while the healing time of fracture was significantly longer than that in the hip arthroplasty group. At postoperative 1 year, there was no statistical difference in the Harris score, the excel ent and good rate of hip function, and the overal incidence of complications between the two groups. Experimental findings indicate that, both proximal femoral intramedul ary nail and hip arthroplasty are biocompatible and effective in the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture, and each technique has their advantages and disadvantages, we should choose the proper technique according to the patient’s condition.
