DHS和PFNA内固定术治疗股骨近端骨折临床疗效比较  

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy of DHS and PFNA Internal Fixation for Proximal Femoral Fractures

作　　者：郑熔昭 ZHENG Rong-zhao(Hospital of Youjiang Mining Bureau,Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region,Baise,Guangxi,531501 China)

机构地区：[1]广西壮族自治区右江矿务局医院,广西百色531501

出　　处：《中外医疗》2020年第10期73-76,共4页China & Foreign Medical Treatment

摘　　要：目的比较研究DHS和PFNA内固定术治疗股骨近端骨折临床疗效。方法该研究方便选择60例股骨近端骨折患者为对象,时间段为2010年1月-2019年8月,根据不同的治疗方式,将所有患者分为对照组和观察组。对照组采取DHS即动力髋螺钉内固定术治疗,观察组实施PFNA内固定术治疗,比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术后骨折愈合时间和并发症等系列情况,分析两组患者的关节功能恢复情况。结果观察组在手术时间和术后骨折愈合时间方面,所用时间显著少于对照组(P<0.05);在术中出血量方面,观察组患者的出血量也明显少于对照组(P<0.05);在并发症方面,对照组发生率为13.33%(4/30),观察组的并发症发生率为3.33%(1/30),两组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。在关节功能恢复方面,对照组的关节恢复优良率为73.33%(22/30),显著低于观察组的93.33%(28/30),差异有统计学意义(χ~2=4.320,P<0.05)。结论对股骨近端骨折患者实施PFNA内固定术治疗,相较于DHS内固定术而言,疗效较好,关节功能恢复效果较为理想,且安全性较高。Objective To compare the clinical effects of DHS and PFNA internal fixation in the treatment of proximal femoral fracture. Methods In this study, 60 patients with proximal femur fracture were conveniently selected as objects,from January 2010 to August 2019. All patients were divided into control group and observation group according to different treatment methods. The control group was treated with DHS, namely dynamic hip screw internal fixation, while the observation group was treated with PFNA internal fixation. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative fracture healing time and complications of the two groups were compared, and the recovery of joint function of the two groups was analyzed. Results The observation group was significantly shorter than the control group in terms of operation time and postoperative fracture healing time(P <0.05). In terms of intraoperative blood loss, patients in the observation group also had significantly less blood loss than those in the control group(P <0.05). In terms of complications, the incidence of complications in the control group was 13.33%(4/30), and that in the observation group was 3.33%(1/30). The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant(P>0.05). In terms of joint function recovery, the excellent and good rate of joint recovery in the control group was 73.33%(22/30), which was significantly lower than that in the observation group 93.33%(28/30), and the difference was statistically significant(χ~2=4.320,P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with DHS internal fixation, PFNA internal fixation for patients with proximal femur fractures has a better curative effect, an ideal recovery effect of joint function, and a relatively high safety.

关 键 词：DHS内固定术 PFNA内固定术 股骨近端骨折 疗效 

分 类 号：R5[医药卫生—内科学]