两种手术方法治疗股骨转子间骨折疗效分析  

Efficacy Analysis of Two Surgical Treatments for Intertrochanteric Fractures

作　　者：夏宏伟[1] 彭祖伦[1] 崔豫宝[1] 黄华溢[1] 

机构地区：[1]湖北航天医院,武汉432100

出　　处：《中国中医骨伤科杂志》2009年第12期31-32,共2页Chinese Journal of Traditional Medical Traumatology & Orthopedics

摘　　要：目的:比较动力髋(DHS)和股骨近端髓内钉(PFN)治疗老年股骨转子间A2型骨折的疗效。方法:根据骨折类型和患者年龄,将收治的37例股骨转子间骨折患者分为两组,分别采用动力髋螺钉(DHS组)和股骨交锁髓内钉(PFN组)两种手术方法治疗,进行临床比较和力学分析。结果:稳定型转子间骨折(Evan'sⅠ-Ⅱ型),DHS治疗最满意,动静力加压的同时,抗弯性、抗旋转性能好;非稳定型骨折(Evan'sⅢ-Ⅳ型),PFN效果最好,髓腔内的固定能缩短力矩,减少弯应力,同时承担转子骨折后骨距不堪负荷的压应力。结论:针对不同类型股骨转子间骨折,手术内固定方法应有一定的选择性。Objective：To compare the curative effect between the dynamic hip screw （DHS） and proximal femoral nail （PFN） in treating elderly type A2 intertrochanteric fractures. Methods：According to the type of fractures and the age of patients,37 patients with intertrochanteric fracture were divided into two groups and treated respectively by DHS and PFN. Results：For the stable intertrochanteric fractures （Evan＇s Ⅰ-Ⅱ type）,DHS showed better effect,since when applying dynamic and static pressure,the performance of anti-bending and anti-rotation were better. While PFN was more suitable for the non-stabilized fractures （Evan＇s Ⅲ -Ⅳ type）,as it could not only shorten the torque and reduce the bending stress,but also share the compressive stress caused by rotor bone fracture. Conclusion：For different types of intertrochanteric fractures,different fixation methods should be applied in surgery.

关 键 词：骨折动力髋螺钉 交锁髓内钉 内固定 应力 选择性 临床研究 

分 类 号：R683.42[医药卫生—骨科学]