当代医学
噹代醫學
당대의학
CHINA CONTEMPORARY MEDICINE
2015年
23期
4-6
,共3页
转子间骨折%股骨近端防旋转髓内钉%动力髁螺钉
轉子間骨摺%股骨近耑防鏇轉髓內釘%動力髁螺釘
전자간골절%고골근단방선전수내정%동력과라정
Peritrochanteric femoral fractures%Proximal femoral nail antirotation%Dynamic condylar screw
目的 比较股骨近端防旋转髓内钉(proximal femoral nail antirotation,PFNA)和动力髁螺钉治疗不稳定型转子间骨折的疗效.方法 回顾性分析使用PFNA和动力髁螺钉治疗的粗隆间患者89例的病例资料,并开展随访.结果 在受伤机制、合并疾病、骨折分型、随访期限、死亡率、骨折复位质量等方面,组间比较差异无统计学意义.PFNA组手术时间为(58.4±10.2)min,显著低于动力髁组(69.5±13.7)min,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).输血病例数PFNA组也显著低于动力髁组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).PFNA组髋关节功能的Harris评分则显著高于动力髁组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 与动力髁相比,PNFA在治疗不稳定型转子间骨折方面具有微创、出血量少、骨折复位更佳、术后功能恢复较好等优势.
目的 比較股骨近耑防鏇轉髓內釘(proximal femoral nail antirotation,PFNA)和動力髁螺釘治療不穩定型轉子間骨摺的療效.方法 迴顧性分析使用PFNA和動力髁螺釘治療的粗隆間患者89例的病例資料,併開展隨訪.結果 在受傷機製、閤併疾病、骨摺分型、隨訪期限、死亡率、骨摺複位質量等方麵,組間比較差異無統計學意義.PFNA組手術時間為(58.4±10.2)min,顯著低于動力髁組(69.5±13.7)min,差異有統計學意義(P<0.05).輸血病例數PFNA組也顯著低于動力髁組,差異有統計學意義(P<0.05).PFNA組髖關節功能的Harris評分則顯著高于動力髁組,差異有統計學意義(P<0.05).結論 與動力髁相比,PNFA在治療不穩定型轉子間骨摺方麵具有微創、齣血量少、骨摺複位更佳、術後功能恢複較好等優勢.
목적 비교고골근단방선전수내정(proximal femoral nail antirotation,PFNA)화동력과라정치료불은정형전자간골절적료효.방법 회고성분석사용PFNA화동력과라정치료적조륭간환자89례적병례자료,병개전수방.결과 재수상궤제、합병질병、골절분형、수방기한、사망솔、골절복위질량등방면,조간비교차이무통계학의의.PFNA조수술시간위(58.4±10.2)min,현저저우동력과조(69.5±13.7)min,차이유통계학의의(P<0.05).수혈병례수PFNA조야현저저우동력과조,차이유통계학의의(P<0.05).PFNA조관관절공능적Harris평분칙현저고우동력과조,차이유통계학의의(P<0.05).결론 여동력과상비,PNFA재치료불은정형전자간골절방면구유미창、출혈량소、골절복위경가、술후공능회복교호등우세.
Objective To compare the efficacy of dynamic condylar screws (DCS) with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) for the treatment for peritrochanteric femoral fractures.Methods A retrospective study was complied.Cases of peritrochanteric femoral fractures treated by DCS or PFNA were collected.Patients with 89 fractures were enrolled in the study; 51 of them were treated with the PFNA system and 38 with the DCS.Followed for at least 1 year,the treatment groups were compared by taking into consideration all demographic and trauma variables.Results No significant differences were found between the two groups in injury mechanism,associated diseases,fracture types,follow-up time,mortality,reduction quality.The operation time of PFNA (58.4±10.2) min was significantly shorter than the DCS group (69.5±13.7)min.The number of transfusion cases in the PFNA group was smaller than the DCS group.The Harris score in the PFNA group was much higher than in the DCS group (P<0.05).Conclusion Compared to the DCS,the PFNA has advantages in mini-injury,blood loss,reduction quality and function recovery for the treatment for peritrochanteric femoral fractures.PFNA was superior to the DCS.
