DHS、解剖型锁定钢板及PFN内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折疗效研究  

A Comparison Study of DHS,Anatomic Locking Plate and PFN Treatment on Femoral Intertrochanteric Fracture

作　　者：王琛[1] 

机构地区：[1]山东中医药大学第二附属医院骨科,250001

出　　处：《中国实用医药》2011年第20期9-10,共2页China Practical Medicine

摘　　要：目的探讨动力髋螺针(Dynamic hip screw pin,DHS)、解剖型锁定钢板及股骨近端髓内钉(proximal femoral nail,PFN)内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折疗效差别。方法将2005年6月至2008年8月就诊于我科的股骨粗隆间骨折患者78例分为3组,分别给予DHS、解剖型锁定钢板及PFN内固定法治疗,分别观察其治疗效果。结果 DHS组、解剖型锁定钢板组及PFN组的优良率依次为79.16%、88.46%及85.71%,各组间差异无统计学意义。解剖型锁定钢板组及PFN组的手术时间及术中失血量少于DHS组。结论三种治疗方法为治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的有效方法,但其在降低手术时间及减少术中失血方面,解剖型锁定钢板及PFN优于DHS。Objective To study the DHS,anatomic locking plate and PFN treatment on femoral intertrochanteric fracture.Methods Between June 2005 and August 2008,78 patients with osteoporotic femoral intertrochanteric fracture were divided into three groups,undergoing DHS,anatomic locking plate and PFN treatment respectively.The operative time,blood loss and operation complications were compared among there groups.Results The eligible rates of DHS,anatomic locking plate and PFN were 79.16%,88.46% and 85.71%,and there were no significant difference among them.There were significantly short operative time,less blood loss in anatomic locking plate and PFN group than in DHS groups（P〈0.05）.There was no significant difference between anatomic locking plate and PFN groups for them.Conclusion Three treatment methods are the effective methods for intertrochanteric fractures.However,the anatomic locking plate and the PFN are better than DHS in reducing operation time and reduce blood loss.

关 键 词：动力髋螺针 解剖型锁定钢板 股骨近端髓内钉 股骨粗隆间骨折 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]