逆行交锁髓内钉(GSHN)和动力髁螺钉(DCS)内固定治疗股骨远端骨折临床效果观察  

The clinical effect observation in treating distal femoral fractures between Intramedullary nail(GSHN) and the dynamic condylar screw(DCS)

作　　者：韩万举 李寅峰[1] 孙诚[1] 

机构地区：[1]安徽省蒙城县第二人民医院,233500

出　　处：《中国医学创新》2011年第1期41-42,共2页Medical Innovation of China

摘　　要：目的观察比较分析应用股骨逆行交锁髓内钉(GSHN)与动力髁螺钉(DCS)治疗股骨远端骨折的优缺点。方法将临床上81例股骨远端骨折的患者随机分为2组,分别为GSHN、DCS组,并使用相应治疗方案,观察两组的骨愈合时间和功能恢复方面的差异。结果逆行交锁髓内钉组的骨折平均愈合时间为6.3个月,动力髁螺钉的骨折平均愈合时间为7.8个月,两组骨折愈合时间差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组术后膝关节功能按美国特种外科医院膝关节功能评分法(HSS)疗效评定标准评定,股骨逆行交锁髓内钉(GSHN)组的优良率为90.2%,动力髁螺钉(DCS)优良率为72.7%,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论股骨逆行交锁髓内钉治疗股骨远端骨折较动力髁螺钉具有更好的临床优势,值得在临床推广使用。Objective To observe the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment of distal femoral fractures, using GSHN and DCS. Methods 81 patients of distal femoral fracture were randomized into 2 groups,which are respectively GSHN and DCS group, the two group use the appropriate treatment, then observeing the differences of bone healing and functional re- covery. Results the average time to fracture of GSHN was 6. 3 months,the average time to fracture of DCS was 7.8 months, two groups of fracture healing time was statistically significant difference （ P 〈 0. 05 ） ; the GSHN ration of fine in the total number was 90.2% ,the DCS ration of fine in the total number was 72. 7% , difference statistically significant （ P 〈 0.05 ）. Conclusion The GSHN babe the clinical advantages,it is to be worth in clinical use.

关 键 词：股骨远端骨折 股骨逆行交锁髓内钉(GSHN) 动力髁螺钉(DCS) 临床应用 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]