中外医疗
中外醫療
중외의료
China Foreign Medical Treatment
2015年
25期
44-46
,共3页
DHS%PFNA%老年股骨粗隆间骨折%临床疗效
DHS%PFNA%老年股骨粗隆間骨摺%臨床療效
DHS%PFNA%노년고골조륭간골절%림상료효
DHS%PFNA%Senile intertrochanteric fracture%Clinical efficacy
目的：探析DHS和PFNA内固定术治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效。方法整群选取该院2013年1月-2015年1月收治的89例老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者，将其随机分为治疗组(45例)和对照组(44例)，治疗组采取PFNA内固定术治疗，对照组采取DHS内固定术治疗，对比分析两组手术情况、治疗效果及术后并发症。结果治疗组手术时间、术中出血量、负重时间、骨折愈合时间分别为(68.3±6.3)min、(177.4±20.4)mL、(5.5±1.2)周、(10.1±1.1)周；对照组手术时间、术中出血量、负重时间、骨折愈合时间分别为(85.4±11.2)min、(289.4±23.1)mL、(7.6±1.3)周、(13.9±1.2)周，两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；治疗组优良率为(44/45)97.78%，且术后髋关节 Harris 评分为(90.1±5.4)分，对照组为(38/44)86.36%，且术后髋关节Harris评分为(80.7±6.8)分，两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；治疗组术后并发症(2/45)4.44%，对照组术后并发症(10/44)22.73%，两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论采取PFNA治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折效果较好，对患者的创伤小，患者能够快速康复，安全性好，术后并发症少，值得应用。
目的：探析DHS和PFNA內固定術治療老年股骨粗隆間骨摺的臨床療效。方法整群選取該院2013年1月-2015年1月收治的89例老年股骨粗隆間骨摺患者，將其隨機分為治療組(45例)和對照組(44例)，治療組採取PFNA內固定術治療，對照組採取DHS內固定術治療，對比分析兩組手術情況、治療效果及術後併髮癥。結果治療組手術時間、術中齣血量、負重時間、骨摺愈閤時間分彆為(68.3±6.3)min、(177.4±20.4)mL、(5.5±1.2)週、(10.1±1.1)週；對照組手術時間、術中齣血量、負重時間、骨摺愈閤時間分彆為(85.4±11.2)min、(289.4±23.1)mL、(7.6±1.3)週、(13.9±1.2)週，兩組比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.05)；治療組優良率為(44/45)97.78%，且術後髖關節 Harris 評分為(90.1±5.4)分，對照組為(38/44)86.36%，且術後髖關節Harris評分為(80.7±6.8)分，兩組比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.05)；治療組術後併髮癥(2/45)4.44%，對照組術後併髮癥(10/44)22.73%，兩組比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.05)。結論採取PFNA治療老年股骨粗隆間骨摺效果較好，對患者的創傷小，患者能夠快速康複，安全性好，術後併髮癥少，值得應用。
목적：탐석DHS화PFNA내고정술치료노년고골조륭간골절적림상료효。방법정군선취해원2013년1월-2015년1월수치적89례노년고골조륭간골절환자，장기수궤분위치료조(45례)화대조조(44례)，치료조채취PFNA내고정술치료，대조조채취DHS내고정술치료，대비분석량조수술정황、치료효과급술후병발증。결과치료조수술시간、술중출혈량、부중시간、골절유합시간분별위(68.3±6.3)min、(177.4±20.4)mL、(5.5±1.2)주、(10.1±1.1)주；대조조수술시간、술중출혈량、부중시간、골절유합시간분별위(85.4±11.2)min、(289.4±23.1)mL、(7.6±1.3)주、(13.9±1.2)주，량조비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)；치료조우량솔위(44/45)97.78%，차술후관관절 Harris 평분위(90.1±5.4)분，대조조위(38/44)86.36%，차술후관관절Harris평분위(80.7±6.8)분，량조비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)；치료조술후병발증(2/45)4.44%，대조조술후병발증(10/44)22.73%，량조비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。결론채취PFNA치료노년고골조륭간골절효과교호，대환자적창상소，환자능구쾌속강복，안전성호，술후병발증소，치득응용。
Objective To explore the clinical efficacy of DHS versus PFNA internal fixation in treating elderly patients with in-tertrochanteric fractures. Methods 89 elderly patients with intertrochanteric fracture treated in our hospital from January 2013 to January 2015 were randomly divided into treatment group (n=45) and control group (n=44). The treatment group received PFNA in-ternal fixation, while the control group received DHS internal fixation. The surgery, clinical effects and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results The operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, weight-bearing time, fracture healing time were (68.3 ± 6.3) min, (177.4 ± 20.4) mL, (5.5 ± 1.2) weeks, (10.1 ± 1.1) weeks respectively in the treatment group and (85.4 ± 11.2) min, (289.4 ± 23.1) mL, (7.6 ± 1.3) weeks, (13.9 ± 1.2) weeks respectively in the control group, and the differ-ences were statistically significant (P<0.05); the excellent-good rate and postoperative Harris hip score were 97.78%(44/45) and (90.1 ± 5.4) in the treatment group, and 86.36%(38/44)and (80.7±6.8)in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05); there was statistically significant difference between the two groups in postoperative complication [(2/45) 4.44%vs (10/44)22.73%, P<0.05]. Conclusion PFNA internal fixation is worthy of promotion in treating elderly patients with in-tertrochanteric fractures due to its little trauma, quick recovery, high safety and fewer complications.
