解剖锁定钢板与动力髋螺钉治疗骨质疏松性股骨转子间骨折  

Treatment of Osteoporotic Intertrochanteric Fractures with Anatomical Locking Plate and Dynamic Hip System

作　　者：陈玉楼[1] 周毅[1] 李兴海[1] 裴梓峰[1] 

机构地区：[1]沈阳医学院沈洲医院骨外科创伤组,辽宁沈阳110002

出　　处：《临床医学工程》2013年第5期579-580,共2页Clinical Medicine & Engineering

摘　　要：目的总结骨质疏松性股骨转子间骨折应用解剖锁定钢板及动力髋螺钉(DHS)内固定的效果及体会。方法选择2007年5月至2009年7月采用内固定治疗骨质疏松性股骨转子间骨折患者65例,其中解剖型锁定钢板组37例,动力髋螺钉组28例。观察手术过程并评估骨折愈合及功能恢复情况。结果 65例患者随访12～36个月,锁定钢板组手术平均时间、术中平均出血量与动力髋螺钉组相比,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),骨折平均愈合时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。按照髋关节Harris评分,锁定钢板组优良率为91.9%,动力髋螺钉组为85.7%,两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论两种方法治疗骨质疏松性股骨转子间骨折均能得到较好的疗效,但解剖锁定钢板在手术平均时间及术中出血量方面要优于动力髋螺钉。Objective To summarize the effect of anatomical locking plate and dynamic hip system in the treatment of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture. Methods From March 2007 to July 2010, 65 cases of osteoporotic intertrochanteric fracture were operated on using internal fixations, included 37 cases of anatomical locking plate and 28 cases of dynamic hip system. The operation processes were observed and the fracture healing and function recovery were assessed. Results All cases were followed up for 12 to 36 months, the difference between two groups was statistically significant in average operation time and intraoperative bleeding volume （P 〈0.05）. There was no significant difference between them in mean healing time of fracture （P 〉0.05）. According to the Harris evaluation model, the excellent and good rate was 91.9% in locking plate group, 85.7% in DHS group （P〉0.05）. Conclusions Both two methods can get good curative effect, but the anatomical locking plate is better than DHS in the average operation time and intraoperative bleeding volume.

关 键 词：骨质疏松 解剖型锁定钢板 动力髋螺钉 股骨转子间骨折 

分 类 号：R683.42[医药卫生—骨科学]