两种不同内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折比较探究.docVIP

两种不同内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折比较探究 　【摘要】 [目的]比较髋动力螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)和股骨近端抗旋转髓内钉(proximal femoral nail antirotation,PFNA)治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效。[方法]对2001年12月～2008年1月长海医院治疗的483例股骨粗隆间骨折患者进行回顾性研究，其中109例用PFNA治疗,374例用DHS治疗。记录每例患者的手术时间、术中出血量、下地行走时间、骨折愈合时间及髋关节功能评分等相关数据。[结果]术后平均随访6～38个月，平均15.3个月。PFNA组、DHS组在手术时间、术中出血量、下地行走时间有显著差异,骨折愈合时间无显著差异,对于稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的PFNA组、DHS组的优良率无显著差异，对于不稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的PFNA组的优良率优于DHS组。[结论]两者有各自的优点和适应证,都是治疗稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的好方法，PFNA对于不稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的治疗更有优势。 【关键词】 股骨粗隆间骨折; 骨折内固定术; 股骨近端抗旋转髓内钉; 髋动力螺钉 　　Abstract：[Objective]To compare the therapeutic effect on femoral intertrochanteric fractures with dynamic hip screw (DHS) and proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA).[Method]A retrospective study of 483 patients with femoral intertrochanteric fractures in Changhai Hospital from December 2001 to January 2008 were carried out.Totally 109 patients were treated with PFNA,while 374 patients were treated with DHS.The data of operative time,blood loss,walking time,union time and hip function scores were recorded.[Result]All the patients were followed up for 6～38 months (15.3 months in average).There were significant differences in operative time,blood loss and walking time between two groups.There were no significant difference in union time.There were no significant difference in the excellent rate between the two groups in stable femoral intertrochanteric fractures.The excellent rate of PFNA group was significantly higher than DHS group in unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures.[Conclusion]Each of them have its own advantages and indications.Both are effective ways to treat stable femoral intertrochanteric fractures.PFNA has more advantages to treat unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures. 　　Key words：femoral intertrochanteric fractures; fracture internal fixation; proximal femoral nail antirotation; dynamic hip screw 　　股骨粗隆间骨折是临床常见骨折，多见于老年人，故随着社会人口老龄化，其发生率呈上升趋势[1,2]。股骨粗隆部血运丰富，骨折极少不愈合，但易发生髋内翻，高龄患者长期卧床引起较多并发症[1]。为减少由卧床引起的并发症，加快患者术后功能康复，降低病死率及致残率，早期牢固的内固定和功能锻炼已成为其公认的治疗原则[3]。笔者对2001年1