摘要
目的分析比较DHS和解剖型锁定钢板治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效,探讨两种方法的优缺点。方法回顾性分析2006年1月～2008年12月接受DHS内固定或解剖型锁定钢板治疗股骨粗隆间骨折65例,两组患者均获1年以上的随访。其中DHS内固定39例(DHS组),解剖型锁定钢板内固定26例(解剖钢板组);病例选择时排除病理性骨折及严重多发伤。比较两种治疗方法在手术时间、术中出血量、术后卧床时间、内固定物并发症、术后随访关节功能状况等方面的指标。结果解剖钢板组与DHS组相比较,显示手术时间、术中出血量差异没有统计学意义,在术后卧床时间上存在统计学意义(P<0.05),内固定物并发症、髋关节功能恢复等差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论解剖型锁定钢板和DHS内固定术均是治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的有效方法。
Objective To discuss a reasonable treatment for intertrochanter fracture of femur by comparison of effects between DHS and LCP fixation. Methods Totally 65 intertroehanteric hip fractures of patients in our department with complete clinical data were retro- spectively analyzed, who were treated with DHS or LCP fixation from January 2006 to December 2008. The two groups both were followed for more than one year respectively. Thity-nine cases were treated with DHS, 26 were treated with LCP fixation. The pathological fractures and severe multiple trauma were excluded for all of them. X2 test and t test was used in comparing the two treated groups in terms of the operative time, the blood lost, during or after surgery time for bed rest postoperative, postoperative complications and St. Michael hip score one year after surgery.Results Compared with the group of DHS, the group of LCP fixation experienced longer time for bed rest postoper- atively （P 〈0.05）, whereas the differences in the operative time, the blood lost during or after surgery, and the postoperative implant com- plications, St. Michael hip score one year after surgery between two groups were of no statistical significance （P 〉0.05）.Conclusion Both of the two methods are reasonable treatment for intertrochanteric hip fractures in patients.
出处
《中国骨与关节损伤杂志》
2011年第2期100-102,共3页
Chinese Journal of Bone and Joint Injury
