| 严超,陈剑锋,李玉鹏,等.骨水泥型人工股骨头置换和PFNA治疗高龄股骨转子间骨折的疗效观察.骨科,2016,7(4): 243-247. |
| 骨水泥型人工股骨头置换和PFNA治疗高龄股骨转子间骨折的疗效观察 |
| Clinical effect of cemented hemiprosthetic hip joint arthroplasty vs. proximal femoral nail anti-rotation in the treatment of elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures |
| 投稿时间：2015-09-20 |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-8573.2016.04.005 |
| 中文关键词: 关节成形术，置换，髋 骨折固定术，内 髋骨折 老年人 |
| 英文关键词: Arthroplasty, replacement, hip Fracture fixation, internal Hip fractures Aged |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 5021 |
| 全文下载次数: 1 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 探讨骨水泥型人工股骨头置换和股骨近端防旋转髓内钉（proximal femoral nail anti-rotation, PFNA）治疗高龄股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析三峡大学人民医院骨科自2008年1月至2013年11月采用骨水泥型人工股骨头置换术和PFNA固定术治疗的高龄股骨转子间骨折患者72例的临床资料，其中人工股骨头置换32例（人工股骨头置换组），PFNA固定术治疗40例（PFNA组）。比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量及关节功能评分等。结果 72例患者随访时间为12~36个月，平均20.8个月。PFNA组出现骨折延迟愈合3例。人工股骨头置换组手术时间为（49.1±10.6） min，优于PFNA组的（57.6±7.2） min；术后1个月及末次随访关节功能Harris评分分别为（61.20±4.37）分、（87.92±3.02）分，优于PFNA组的（54.60±3.18）分、（78.86±8.13）分，差异均有统计学意义（均P＜0.05）；而术中出血量、术后引流量分别为（204.2±36.1） ml、（110.5±26.3） ml，多于PFNA组的（98.2±32.3） ml、（58.7±15.7） ml，差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 两种方法均可有效治疗高龄股骨转子间骨折，术前根据患者情况选择适当治疗方式均恢复关节功能，提高患者生活质量。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To explore the clinical efficacy of cemented Hemiprosthetic hip joint arthroplasty vs. proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in the treatment of elderly patient with intertrochanteric fractures. Methods This retrospective study included 72 cases of intertrochanteric fracture between January 2008 to November 2013. The patients were treated by cemented hemiprosthetic hip joint arthroplasty (group Hemiprosthetic, n=32) and PFNA (group PFNA, n=40). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative suction drainage, and Harris hip scores were used to determine the efficacy. Results The 72 patients were followed up for average 20.8 months (12 to 36 months). Fracture delayed nonunion occurred in 3 cases of group PFNA. The operation time in the group Hemiprosthetic and group PFNA was respectively (49.1±10.6) min and (57.6±7.2) min, intraoperative blood loss was (204.2±36.1) ml and (98.2±32.3) ml, and postoperative suction drainage was (110.5±26.3) ml and (58.7±15.7) ml, respectively. Harris hip scores at 1st month and final follow-up after operation were respectively 61.20±4.37 and 87.92±3.02 in group Hemiprosthetic, and 54.60±3.18 and 78.86±8.13 in group PFNA. The cemented hemiprosthetic hip joint arthroplasty had advantages in operation time and Harris hip score, but not in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative suction drainage. Conclusion Both two methods are effective for the intertrochanteric fracture. According to the fracture type and physical condition of patients, they can restore the joint function and improve the quality of life. |
|
查看全文
下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
