摘要
目的：比较股骨近端锁定加压接骨板（10ckingcompressionplate，LCP）与股骨近端抗旋转髓内钉（proximalfemoralnailantirotation，PFNA）治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的的临床疗效。方法：2005—2011年共收入125例股骨粗隆间骨折患者，随机分为2组，一组行股骨近端LCP。另一组行PFNA。2组患者术后随访12～24个月，平均18．2个月。比较2组术中及术后情况。结果：2组一般资料比较，差异均无统计学意义（P〉O．05）。在切口长度、术中出血、卧床时间和术后引流量方面，差异有统计学意义（P〈O．05）。2组在手术时间、骨折愈合时间、术后并发症及末次随访时Harries评分方面，差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论：两者有各自的优点和适应证，都是治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的好方法，PFNA治疗股骨粗隆间骨折疗效好，并发症少，操作相对简单，是治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的理想方法。
Objective：To compare therapeutic effects between proximal femoral locking compression plate（LCP） and proximal femoral nail antirotation （PFNA） in the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures. Methods：Totally 125 patients with intertrochanteric fractures from 2005 to 201 lwere enrolled and were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in the two groups were treated with PF- NA and proximal femoral LCP respectively. Follow-up was conducted for 12-24 months, averaged 18.2 months. Condition during the operation and after operation was compared between two groups. Results：There was no significant difference in general data between the two groups（P〉O.05）. There were significant differences in length of incision,blood loss,bed-lying time and postoperative drainage between two groups （P〈O.05）. There was no significant difference in operation time,fracture healing time, Hurries score and compli- cations between two groups （P〉0.05）. Conclusions：For the treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fracture, both proximal femoral LCP and PFNA fixation could achieve good outcome,however,PFNA has more advantages in treating unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures.
出处
《重庆医科大学学报》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2013年第11期1278-1281,共4页
Journal of Chongqing Medical University
关键词
股骨粗隆间骨折
骨折内固定
锁定加压接骨板
股骨近端抗旋转髓内钉
femoral intertrochanteric fracture
fracture internal fixation
locking compression plate
proximal femoral nail antirotation
