微创股骨近端防旋髓内钉和人工股骨头置换术治疗骨质疏松性老年髋部骨折的临床疗效对比  

Clinical Comparison of Minimally Invasive Anti-Rotation Intramedullary Nail of Proximal Femur and Artificial Femoral Head Replacement in the Treatment of Osteoporotic hip Fracture in Elderly Patients

作　　者：王奔[1] 卢晓栋[1] 富学禹[1] WANG Ben;LU Xiao-dong;FU Xue-yu(Department of Orthopedics,Tianjin Occupational Disease Prevention Hospital,Tianjin 300011)

机构地区：[1]天津市职业病防治院骨科,天津300011

出　　处：《中国医疗器械信息》2021年第20期34-35,69,共3页China Medical Device Information

摘　　要：目的:比较PFNA与BFHR治疗骨质疏松性老年髋部骨折临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2018年1月~2020年10月在本院骨科接受治疗的78例骨质疏松性老年髋部骨折患者,将其分为PFNA组39例以及BFHR组39例,分别行PFNA或BFHR治疗。比较两组患者的围手术期资料及Harris评分。结果:PFNA组患者的手术时间更短,切口长度更小,显性失血量更低,BFHR组患者的术后卧床时间更短(P<0.05);与PFNA组患者对比,BFHR组患者的术后2周、1个月的Harris评分更高(P<0.05)。结论:PFNA、BFHR均能达到良好的治疗效果且各具优势,BFHR的术后恢复更快,PFNA更适合耐受力、术中风险高的患者。Objective:Compare the clinical efficacy of PFNA and BFHR in the treatment of osteoporotic hip fractures in the elderly.Methods:A retrospective analysis of 78 elderly patients with osteoporotic hip fractures who were treated in the orthopedics department of our hospital from January 2018 to October 2020,they were divided into PFNA group 39 cases and BFHR group 39 cases,and PFNA or BFHR were performed respectively treatment.The perioperative data and Harris scores of the two groups were compared.Results:Patients in the PFNA group had shorter incision lengths and lower apparent blood loss.Patients in the BFHR group had shorter postoperative bedtime(P<0.05);compared with patients in the PFNA group,patients in the BFHR group had 2 weeks and 1 month after surgery Harris score is higher(P<0.05).Conclusion:Both PFNA and BFHR can achieve good therapeutic effects and each have their own advantages.BFHR has a faster postoperative recovery,and PFNA is more suitable for patients with high tolerance and high intraoperative risk.

关 键 词：髋部骨折 骨质疏松性骨折 人工股骨头置换 股骨近端防旋髓内钉 

分 类 号：R683.3[医药卫生—骨科学]