股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定与动力髋螺钉内固定治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的对比研究  

A comparative study of proximal femoral nail antirotation internal fixation versus dynamic hip screw internal fixation for treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the aged

作　　者：郑艳峰[1] 吴勋[1] 周荣昌[1] 陈有芬[1] 朱家骏[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江省金华市人民医院,浙江金华321000

出　　处：《中医正骨》2015年第4期24-28,共5页The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology

摘　　要：目的：比较股骨近端防旋髓内钉（proximal femoral nail antirotation，PFNA）内固定和动力髋螺钉（dynamic hip screw，DHS）内固定治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效和安全性。方法：回顾性分析280例股骨转子间骨折患者的病例资料，其中采用PFNA内固定180例，采用 DHS 内固定100例。男169例，女111例；年龄61～77岁，中位数65岁；按照股骨转子间骨折的 Evans分型，Ⅰ型62例、Ⅱ型73例、Ⅲ型73例、Ⅳ型72例。比较2组患者的切口长度、出血量、手术时间、引流量、卧床时间、骨折愈合时间及并发症发生情况，并于术后6个月比较2组患者的临床疗效。结果：①一般指标。PFNA 组的切口长度、出血量、引流量均小于 DHS 组[（4．44±1．49）cm，（6．34±2．44）cm，t ＝3．737，P ＝0．034；（205．25±24．54）mL，（298．29±28．64）mL，t ＝4．055，P ＝0．028；（64．46±10．67）mL，（105．11±19．84）mL，t ＝4．874，P ＝0．020]，其手术时间、卧床时间、骨折愈合时间均短于 DHS 组[（68．68±14．43）min，（96．44±11．25）min，t ＝4．462，P ＝0．022；（34．51±7．88）d，（53．38±8．59）d，t ＝5．448，P ＝0．016；（3．22±1．13）月，（4．07±1．85）月，t ＝4．366，P ＝0．025]。②临床疗效。PFNA 组优110例、良59例、可10例、差1例，DHS 组优55例、良30例、可10例、差5例；2组患者的临床疗效比较，差异无统计学意义（Z ＝－1．495，P ＝0．135）。③安全性。PFNA 组1例患者术后切口感染，3例患者骨折畸形愈合，4例患者下肢深静脉血栓形成；DHS 组3例患者术后切口感染，2例患者内固定断裂，4例患者骨折畸形愈合，3例患者下肢深静脉血栓形成。PFNA 组并发症发生率低于 DHS 组（χ2＝5．533，P ＝0．019）。结论：对于老年股骨转子间骨折患者而言，虽然 PFNA 内固定与 DHS 内固定在临床疗效方面无明显差Objective：To compare the clinical curative effects and safety of proximal femoral nail antirotation（PFNA）internal fixation versus dynamic hip screw（DHS）internal fixation in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the aged.Methods：The medical records of 280 patients with intertrochanteric fractures were analyzed retrospectively.One hundred and eighty patients were treated with PFNA internal fixation（PFNA group）,while the others were treated with DHS internal fixation（DHS group）.The patients consisted of 169 males and 111 females,and ranged in age from 61 to 77 years（Median =65 yrs）.According to the Evans classification of intertrochanteric fractures,the fractures belonged to typesⅠ（62）,Ⅱ（73）,Ⅲ（73）and Ⅳ（72）.The incision length,blood loss,operative time,volume of drainage,bed rest time,fracture healing time and complications were compared between the 2 groups,and the clinical effects were also compared between the 2 groups at 6 months after surgery.Results：The incision length,blood loss and volume of drainage of PFNA group were less than those of DHS group（4.44 ＋/-1.49 vs 6.34 ＋/-2.44 cm,t =3.737,P =0.034;205.25 ＋/-24.54 vs 298.29 ＋/-28.64 mL,t =4.055,P =0.028;64.46 ＋/-10.67 vs 105.11 ＋/-19.84 mL,t =4.874,P =0.020）,and the operative time,bed rest time and fracture healing time were also shorter in PFNA group compared to DHS group（68.68 ＋/-14.43 vs 96.44 ＋/-11.25 min,t =4.462,P =0.022;34.51 ＋/-7.88 vs 53.38 ＋/-8.59 days,t =5.448,P =0.016;3.22 ＋/-1.13 vs 4.07 ＋/-1.85 months,t =4.366,P =0.025）.One hundred and ten patients obtained an excellent result,59 good,10 fair and 1 poor in the PFNA group;while 55 patients obtained an excellent result,30 good,10 fair and 5 poor in the DHS group.There was no statistical difference in clinical effects between the 2 groups（Z =-1.495,P =0.135）.Incision infection（1 case）,fracture malunion（3 cases）and lower extremity deep venous thrombosis（4 cases）were found in PFNA group;while inc

关 键 词：髋骨折 骨折固定术 内 内固定器 股骨近端防旋髓内钉 动力髋螺钉 老年人 治疗 临床研究性 

分 类 号：R687.3[医药卫生—骨科学]