锁定钢板和PFNA治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的比较  

A comparison between locking plate and PFNA in treating femoral intertrochanteric fracture

作　　者：周明昊[1] 吕建军[1] 谢威[1] 江淮[1] 黄军[1] 

机构地区：[1]安徽医科大学附属六安医院,安徽六安237005

出　　处：《安徽医药》2013年第1期78-79,共2页Anhui Medical and Pharmaceutical Journal

摘　　要：目的比较锁定钢板和股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效。方法回顾性分析2009年5月—2011年10月该院用锁定钢板和PFNA治疗股骨粗隆间骨折各32例和38例的手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合时间和术后并发症。结果所有病例中,PFNA组平均手术时间和术中出血量均小于锁定钢板组,差别具有统计学意义,两组均无骨不连及股骨头坏死发生,钢板组术后髋内翻发生2例,PFNA组术后股骨干骨折发生1例。骨折愈合时间的差别无统计学意义。Harris评分系统:钢板组优良率75%(24例),PFNA组80%(30例),差别无统计学意义。结论 PFNA相比锁定钢板在治疗股骨粗隆间骨折中,具有创伤小、出血少等优点,更适合用于发病人群为老年人的股骨粗隆间骨折。Objective To compare the curative effects of locking plate and PFNA in treating intertrochanteric fracture.Methods Retrospective analysis on locking plate and PFNA operations（32 and 38 respectively）during May 2009 and October 2011 was made,focusing on the operation time,amount of bleeding in operations,healing time and postoperative complications.Results In all cases,the operation time and amount of bleeding in operations in PFNA group were fewer than those in locking plate group,with a significant difference.There were neither nonunion nor osteonecrosis of the femoral head in both groups.In locking plate group,there were two cases of coxa vara,and there was one case of postoperative fracture of femoral shaft.The healing time had no statistical significance.Harris marking system showed acceptance rate of locking plate group was 75%（24 cases）while that in PFNA group was 80%（30 cases）,which had no statistical significance.Conclusions Compared with locking plate,PFNA has smaller injury and less hemorrhage,which is more suitable for intertrochanteric fractures occuring on the elderly.

关 键 词：锁定钢板 股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA) 股骨粗隆间骨折 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]