髓内钉与近端锁定钢板治疗股骨近端骨折的对比研究  

Comparison of clinical efficacy of proximal femoral nail anti-rotatio and locking plate for proximal femoral fractures

作　　者：叶庆林[1] 邹华章[1] 罗春强[1] 梁桂泉 卢志文[1] 

机构地区：[1]增城市新塘医院外二科,广东511340

出　　处：《创伤外科杂志》2016年第4期211-213,共3页Journal of Traumatic Surgery

摘　　要：目的探讨股骨近端螺旋刀片抗旋髓内钉（PFNA）和股骨近端锁定钢板（PFLCP）治疗股骨近端骨折患者的临床疗效并进行对比分析。方法笔者回顾性分析2010年3月～2014年3月采用PFNA和PFLCP法治疗股骨近端骨折70例的病例资料,PFNA内固定治疗40例,PFLCP内固定治疗30例。观察比较两组患者手术时间、术中透视时间、术中失血量、术后引流量以及Parker-Palmer评分的差异。结果所有患者随访6～9个月,平均8.9个月。末次随访时两种方法的Parker-Palmer评分差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。两种方法的手术时间、术中透视时间、术中失血量、术后引流量以及Parker-Palmer评分的差异均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,但PFNA组的术中透视时间明显短于PFLCP组。结论 PFNA和PFLCP均是治疗股骨近端骨折较好的内固定材料。Objective To compare and analyze the clinical efficacy of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation（ PFNA） and proximal femoral locking compression plate（ PFLCP） in the treatment of proximal femoral fracture.Methods From Mar. 2010 to Mar. 2014,70 patients with proximal femoral fracture treated with PFNA and PFLCP were collected. All of these patients were randomly divided into PFNA group（ 40 cases） and PFLCP group（ 30 cases）. The operation time,intraoperative fluoroscopy time,intraoperative blood loss,postoperative drainage volume and Parker-Palmer score between these two groups were compared. Results All patients were followed up for 6-9months,averaging 8. 9 months. There was no significant difference in the intraoperative blood loss,operative time,postoperative drainage volume and Parker-Palmer score between the two groups. But intraoperative fluoroscopy time of the PFNA group was shorter than that of the PFLCP group. Conclusion PFNA and PFLCP were both good internal fixation materials for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures.

关 键 词：股骨骨折 髓内钉 钢板 内固定 

分 类 号：R683.42[医药卫生—骨科学]