微创动力髋螺钉和传统动力髋螺钉治疗股骨转子间骨折的临床效果比较  

Clinical comparison of minimally invasive and conventional dynamic hip screw in the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures

作　　者：钟辉华 

机构地区：[1]深圳市龙岗区平湖人民医院,广东深圳518111

出　　处：《中国现代医学杂志》2011年第34期4335-4336,4340,共3页China Journal of Modern Medicine

摘　　要：目的通过微创动力髋螺钉(MIDHS)与传统动力髋螺钉(CDHS)治疗股骨转子间骨折的临床效果的比较,探讨两者的优劣。方法选取2005年1月～2011年4月该院收治的80例股骨转子间骨折患者为研究对象,随机分为两组,每组40例,分别进行MIDHS与CDHS治疗。追踪患者的治疗情况,通过愈合率、愈合时间、住院天数、骨折复位满意率、伤口长度、手术时间、失血量等指标比较两种治疗方法的优劣。结果两种治疗方法在愈合率,骨折复位满意率上没有差异(P>0.05);但手术时间,愈合时间、住院天数等方面的差异有显著性(P<0.05),而在伤口长度和失血量上差异有显著性(P<0.01)。结论 MIDHS与CDHS固定均可有效地治疗股骨转子间骨折,而MIDHS固定能缩短手术和愈合时间,创伤小,是股骨转子间骨折是较好的选择。[ Objective ] To compare the treatment effect of femoral intertrochanteric fractures by minimally invasire dynamic hip screws （MIDHS） and conventional dynamic hip screws （CDHS） and to research their own advantages. [Methods] We selected 80 examples of femoral intertrochanteric fractures from January 2005 to April 2011 in our hospital for study. They were divided into two groups randomly, the MIDHS group and CDHS group. The follow-up data involved healing rate and time, hospital stays, fracture reduction rate, the length of wound, operative time and the volume of blood loss were analyzed comparatively. [ Results ] The two groups had no differences in healing rate and fracture reduction rate （P 〉0.05）. However, there had statistically significant differences in operative time, healing time and hospital stays （P 〈0.05）, and the length of the wound and blood loss had significant differences （P 〈0.01）. [ Conclusion ] MIDHS and CDHS can effectively treat femoral intertrochanterie fractures. Moreover, with a shorter surgery and healing time and a less trauma, MIDHS is a. better choice for the femoral intertrochanterie fractures.

关 键 词：股骨转子间骨折 动力髋螺钉 微创 骨折固定术 

分 类 号：R683.42[医药卫生—骨科学]