CAJ | 학술논문

目的:比较双动股骨头置换术和髋关节置换术治疗股骨颈骨折动力的临床疗效. 方法:选取本院2012年3月至2014年1月收治的78例股骨颈骨折患者作为研究对象,其中38例行双动股骨头置换术(观察组),40 例行髋关节置换术(对照组),对比分析两种术式的手术情况、愈合情况、Harris髋关节功能评分及术后并发症等指标. 结果:观察组平均手术时间为(79.74±12.65)min,对照组平均手术时间为(96.45±21.75)min,两组比较,观察组手术时间较对照组明显缩短. 同时观察组术中出血量与引流量亦明显于对照组,差异有统计学意义( P<0.05). 观察组术后第1天主动直腿抬高的角度明显大于对照组,且完全负重所需周数与骨折愈合周数均明显低于对照组. 术后1周与6周,观察组患者Harris评分均高于对照组,差异有统计学意义( P<0.05). 但术后3个月后,两组患者评分结果基本一致,表明两组患者的远期疗效差异不显著( P>0.05). 同时,观察组并发症发生率明显高于对照组( P<0.05). 结论:双动股骨头置换术与髋关节置换术均是治疗股骨颈骨折的良好手术方法,临床实践中,应坚持个体化治疗的原则,对患者进行正确的评估,采用合适的手术方法,使治疗取得满意的疗效.
목적:비교쌍동고골두치환술화관관절치환술치료고골경골절동력적림상료효. 방법:선취본원2012년3월지2014년1월수치적78례고골경골절환자작위연구대상,기중38례행쌍동고골두치환술(관찰조),40 례행관관절치환술(대조조),대비분석량충술식적수술정황、유합정황、Harris관관절공능평분급술후병발증등지표. 결과:관찰조평균수술시간위(79.74±12.65)min,대조조평균수술시간위(96.45±21.75)min,량조비교,관찰조수술시간교대조조명현축단. 동시관찰조술중출혈량여인류량역명현우대조조,차이유통계학의의( P<0.05). 관찰조술후제1천주동직퇴태고적각도명현대우대조조,차완전부중소수주수여골절유합주수균명현저우대조조. 술후1주여6주,관찰조환자Harris평분균고우대조조,차이유통계학의의( P<0.05). 단술후3개월후,량조환자평분결과기본일치,표명량조환자적원기료효차이불현저( P>0.05). 동시,관찰조병발증발생솔명현고우대조조( P<0.05). 결론:쌍동고골두치환술여관관절치환술균시치료고골경골절적량호수술방법,림상실천중,응견지개체화치료적원칙,대환자진행정학적평고,채용합괄적수술방법,사치료취득만의적료효.
Objective:To investigate the clinical efficacy of bipolar femoral head replacement and total hip replacement on the treatment of femoral neck fractures.Method: We retrospectively studied 78 cases with femoral neck fractures from March 2012 to January 2014 in our hospital,which were divided into the ob-servation group and control group,38 cases with bipolar femoral head replacement,while 40 cases with total hip replacement.And compared the operation time,healing time, Harris hip score and the postoperative com-plications of two groups.Result:The average operation time of observation group was (79.74 ±12.65) min, while the control group was (96.45±21.75) min, comparing the two groups, the operation time of observa-tion group was significantly shortened.At the same time, bleeding amount of observation group was also ap-parent decreased in the control group, the difference was statistically significant( P<0 .05) .The active angle of the observation group after one day was significantly greater than the control group, and the healing weeks were significantly lower than the control group.After 1 week and 6 weeks, Harris scores in patients with ob-servation group was higher than that of control group, the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.05) . But three months later, two groups showed the same score, which was no significant difference in the curative effect ( P>0.05) .At the same time, the complication rate of observation group was significantly higher than the control group (P<0.05).Conclusion:Bipolar femoral head replacement and total hip replacement are both good surgery method for treatment of femoral neck fractures.We should stick to the principle of individu-alized treatment, which is adopted the appropriate surgical method to obtain satisfactory curative effect.