PFNA与解剖锁定钢板治疗股骨转子间骨折的疗效对比
2018-06-06张麟顾华付建
张麟 顾华 付建
【摘要】目的:对比PFNA与解剖锁定钢板治疗股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效结果。方法:对我院2015年8月至2017年6月收治的93例股骨转子间骨折患者临床资料进行回顾性分析,按照治疗方法分为对照组和研究组,对照组46例应用解剖锁定钢板治疗,研究组47例应用PFNA治疗,对比疗效结果。结果:研究组患者的术中出血量低于对照组,平均住院时间、骨折愈合时间短于对照组,并发症发生率低于对照组,有统计学差异(P<0.05),研究组患者髋关节功能评分分别为(91.6±2.7)分、(93.2±1.8)分,组间比较无统计学差异(T=3.809,P>0.05)。结论:PFNA、解剖锁定钢板治疗股骨转子间骨折均取得良好的疗效,但PFNA治疗出血量少、骨折愈合快,利于患者术后恢复。
【关键词】PFNA;解剖锁定钢板;股骨转子间骨折
Abstract Objective: To compare the clinical results of PFNA and anatomic locking plate in the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture of the femur. Methods : 93 cases in our hospital from August 2015 to June 2017 were intertrochanteric fractures in patients with clinical data, according to the methods of treatment were divided into control group and study group, 46 cases in the control group used anatomical locking plate treatment, study group treated by PFNA in 47 cases, compared the curative effect. Results: Patients in the study group, intraoperative blood loss is lower than the control group, the average hospitalization time, fracture healing time was shorter than the control group, the complication rate was lower than the control group, there was significant difference (P < 0.05), study group of patients with hip function scores were (91.6 ± 2.7), (93.2 ± 1.8) points, comparison there was no significant difference between groups (T=3.809, P > 0.05). Conclusion: PFNA、 anatomical locking plate for the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures have achieved good results, but PFNA has less bleeding and faster fracture healing, which is conducive to postoperative recovery.
Key words: PFNA; anatomic locking plate; intertrochanteric fracture of the femur
【中图分类号】 R683.42
【文獻标识码】 B
【文章编号】 1672-3783(2018)03-03-076-01
股骨转子间骨折是指在暴力作用下身体跌倒时发生旋转,因过度外展导致大转子直接撞击,进而造成转子间骨折[1]。当发生股骨转子间骨折后,患者的髋部会出现明显的肿胀、压痛感,导致患者下肢活动受限,行走困难,不仅给患者造成极大的痛苦,还降低了患者的生活质量,因此予以患者有效的治疗对患者生活质量的改善具有极大的价值。本次研究选取93例股骨转子间骨折患者的临床资料回顾性分析 对比采取股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)与股骨近端解剖锁定钢板(PFLP)对股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效,现将临床治疗情况作如下报道。
1资料与方法
1.1一般资料回顾性分析我院2015年8月至2017年6月收治的93例股骨转子间骨折患者资料,按照治疗方式分组为对照组(46例)、研究组(47例),对照组:男性患者28例,女性患者18例,年龄范围46-83岁,平均年龄(64.5±5.4)岁,Evans分型为:Ⅰ型21例,Ⅱ型16例,Ⅲ9例;……
