扩髓髓内钉与锁定接骨板治疗股骨干骨折的疗效比较  

Reamed intramedullary nail versus locking compression plate in femoral shaft fracture

作　　者：翁鉴[1,2] 曾晖[2] 肖德明[2] 熊奡[2] 陶可[2] 辛风[2] 

机构地区：[1]汕头大学医学院,06级临床七年制广东汕头515041 [2]北京大学深圳医院骨关节科,广东深圳518036

出　　处：《临床骨科杂志》2013年第5期517-519,共3页Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics

摘　　要：目的观察股骨扩髓髓内钉（RIN）和锁定接骨板（LCP）治疗股骨干骨折患者的临床疗效。方法对50例股骨干骨折患者分别采用RIN内固定（25例）和LCP内固定（25例）治疗。对比两组患者手术时间、术中失血量、切口长度、住院时间、术后8周骨痂面积、功能评价情况。结果50例均获得随访，时间RIN组11～28个月、LCP组10～32个月。术中出血量、住院时间及Flynn功能评价两组差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。RIN组手术时间较LCP组长、切口长度较LCP组短、术后第8周骨痂面积比LCP组大，差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论RIN与LCP两种内固定方式均能取得良好的治疗效果，但RIN组术后骨痂形成较多，骨折愈合情况更为理想。Objective To observe the clinical outcome of reamed intramedullary nail （RIN） and locking compres- sion plate （LCP） in femoral shaft fracture. Methods A retrospective study of 50 patients with femoral shaft fracture who had been treated by RIN （25 cases） or LCP （25 cases） were carried out. Comparisons were made among two groups in operation time, volume of intraoperative bleeding, length of wounds, hospitalization, area of callus in 8 weeks after surgery, functional recovery. Results The RIN group was followed up for 11 to 28 months. The LCP group was followed up for 10 to 32 months. There were no significant differences between two groups in volume of in- traopetative bleeding, hospitalization and Flynn＇s outcome scoring（P 〉 0. 05）. The operation time and area of callus in RIN group was more than LCP group. The length of wounds in LCP group was more than RIN group, the differ- ences were statistically significant （P 〈 0.05 ）. Conclusions Both RIN and LCP can achieve well therapeutic effect. But RIN will gain more callus after surgery to heal the fractures better.

关 键 词：股骨干骨折 骨折固定术 髓内 扩髓髓内钉 锁定接骨板 

分 类 号：R683.42[医药卫生—骨科学] R687.33[医药卫生—外科学]