Gamma钉与解剖型锁定钢板治疗股骨转子间骨折疗效比较  

Comparison of effects of Gamma nail and locking compression plate fixation in treatment of intertrochanter fracture of femur

作　　者：张海龙[1] 管国平[1] 杨业林[1] 孙超[1] 王华[1] 钟镜林 

机构地区：[1]南京医科大学附属江宁医院骨2科,江苏南京211100

出　　处：《临床骨科杂志》2013年第6期664-666,共3页Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics

摘　　要：目的探讨Gamma钉与解剖型锁定钢板治疗股骨转子间骨折的手术创伤、并发症及术后疗效。方法将56例股骨转子间骨折患者按治疗方法分为Gamma钉组(26例)和解剖型锁定钢板组(30例)。术后对两组患者手术创伤、并发症及功能恢复情况进行比较。结果两组手术时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),术中出血量、术后卧床时间Gamma钉组明显少于解剖型锁定钢板组(P<0.05),两组髋关节功能恢复情况差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 Gamma钉与解剖型锁定钢板治疗股骨转子间骨折均有效,但Gamma钉创伤小、出血量少,可早期下地。Objective To compare the outcome of Gamma nail and locking compression plate （LCP） in the treatment of intertrochanter fracture of femur. Methods The patients with intertrocbanter fracture were divided into Gamma nail group（ n = 26） and LCP group （n = 30） randomly. The two treatment groups were comparable in aspect of general data. The clinical data of surgical trauma, complications and postoperative function of the two groups were compared in our study. Results There were significant differences in intraoperative blood loss volume and standing time after operation between two groups （ P 〈 0.05 ）. Parker hip score between two groups were no statistical significance （ P 〉 0.05）. Conclusions Intertrochanteric fracture can be treated successfully with Gamma nail and LCP. There is no significant difference in complications and functional outcome between the two groups. However, Gamma nail takes advantages of less blood loss,less operative time and less fluoroscopy time over LCP.

关 键 词：股骨转子间骨折 GAMMA钉 解剖型锁定钢板 

分 类 号：R683.42[医药卫生—骨科学] R687.32[医药卫生—外科学]