目的:探讨股骨近端防旋髓内钉(proximal femoral nail anti-rotation,PFNA)与动力髋螺钉(dynamic hipscrew,DHS)固定治疗股骨转子间骨折的疗效差异。方法:运用计算机检索Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE数据库、Elsevier数据库、中国生物医学...目的:探讨股骨近端防旋髓内钉(proximal femoral nail anti-rotation,PFNA)与动力髋螺钉(dynamic hipscrew,DHS)固定治疗股骨转子间骨折的疗效差异。方法:运用计算机检索Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE数据库、Elsevier数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据库以及手工检索相关文献的参考文献。所有检索截至2011年12月5日。收集PFNA与DHS固定比较治疗股骨转子间骨折随机对照试验的英文及中文文献,严格评价纳入研究的方法学质量并提取资料。统计软件采用RevMan5.0。结果:共纳入13项随机对照试验,共958例患者,其中PFNA组475例,DHS组483例。资料分析显示,PFNA固定与DHS固定比较,手术时间缩短[WMD=-21.38,95%CI(-33.050,-9.26),P<0.05]、术中失血量减少[WMD=-176.36,95%CI(-232.20,-120.52),P<0.05]、术后总并发症发生率降低[RR=0.46,95%CI(0.31,0.70),P<0.05]、术后内固定失效发生率降低[RR=0.27,95%CI(0.11,0.62),P<0.05]。结论:与DHS相比,PFNA能缩短平均手术时间,减少平均术中出血量,降低术后总并发症发生率以及术后内固定失效发生率;但目前尚无足够证据表明PFNA在减少平均住院时间、平均术后骨折愈合时间以及降低术后骨折发生率、髋内翻发生率、术后浅表切口感染发生率、术后其他并发症发生率和术后Harris评分优良率上要优于DHS。展开更多
AIM To compare the operation time, blood loss, and early outcomes of acetabular components with and without the screw.METHODS Thirty patients who underwent cementless acetabular component with or without screw and who...AIM To compare the operation time, blood loss, and early outcomes of acetabular components with and without the screw.METHODS Thirty patients who underwent cementless acetabular component with or without screw and whose follow-up exceeded one year period in total hip arthroplasty were evaluated. A posterior approach was used in all surgical procedures by one experienced surgeon. Demographic data, operation time, intra-and postoperative blood loss volume, follow-up clinical score, cup migration, and osteolysis were recorded. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed for testing the normality of study data. Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the intergroup differences. A P-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.RESULTS Acetabular components were used in 16(53.3%) patients with screw and 14(46.7%) without screw. After one year of follow-up, an osteolytic lesion of 3 mm was found in only one patient in the screw group. No cup migrationwas encountered. Intra-group mean Harris hip score significantly increased, but there was no significant intergroup difference. While the mean operation time of the screw group was 121.8 min(range; 95-140), it was 102.7 min(range; 80-120) in the no-screw group, and this difference was statistically significant(P = 0.002). The mean intraoperative/postoperative, and total blood loss were 556.6 mL(range: 350-800)/423.3 mL(range: 250-600), and 983.3 mL(range: 600-1350), respectively in the screw group; and 527 mL(range: 400-700)/456 mL(range: 230-600), and 983 mL(range: 630-1250), respectively in the no-screw group. The blood loss difference between the two groups was not significant. In the screw group, the operation time was 19.1 min longer than the no-screw group, and this difference was statistically significant.CONCLUSION Acetabular components with or without screw have similar results, but the use of screw increases the operation time significantly, while not changing the blood loss volume.展开更多
[目的]探讨由髋关节镜下复位空心钉固定治疗Garden Ⅲ~Ⅳ型青壮年股骨颈骨折的临床疗效。[方法]回顾性分析2018年1月—2020年12月手术治疗的40例Garden Ⅲ-Ⅳ型青壮年股骨颈骨折患者的临床资料。根据医患沟通结果,18例采用髋关节镜下复...[目的]探讨由髋关节镜下复位空心钉固定治疗Garden Ⅲ~Ⅳ型青壮年股骨颈骨折的临床疗效。[方法]回顾性分析2018年1月—2020年12月手术治疗的40例Garden Ⅲ-Ⅳ型青壮年股骨颈骨折患者的临床资料。根据医患沟通结果,18例采用髋关节镜下复位空心钉固定(镜下组),22例采用传统切开复位空心钉固定术(传统组)。比较两组围手术期、随访及影像结果。[结果]所有患者均顺利完成手术,镜下组手术时间显著长于传统组[(98.0±7.6) min vs (72.8±6.0) min, P<0.05],但镜下组切口总长度[(36.27±4.3) mm vs (94.7±5.8) mm, P<0.05]、透视次数[(3.1±0.8)次vs (7.2±1.5)次, P<0.05]、术中出血量[(38.7±5.6) ml vs (245.5±39.6) ml, P<0.05]、住院时间[(7.1±1.2) d vs (9.0±1.8) d, P<0.05]均显著优于传统组。术后随访平均(41.4±10.4)个月,镜下组完全负重活动时间显著早于传统组[(92.6±1.8) d vs (106.4±4.3) d, P<0.05]。随时间推移,两组VAS评分、Harris]评分、髋伸-屈ROM、髋内旋-外旋ROM均显著改善(P<0.05)。术前两组VAS评分的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),术后相应时间点,镜下组VAS评分、Harris评分、髋伸-屈ROM和髋内旋-外旋ROM均显著优于传统组(P<0.05)。影像方面,相应时间点,两组间Garden指数、颈干角、T?nnis髋OA分级差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。[结论]髋关节镜下复位空心钉固定治疗青壮年移位型股骨颈骨折可以在直视下进行骨折复位,术中出血少、手术创伤小、透视次数少、住院时间短、骨折愈合快、术后髋关节功能恢复好。展开更多
Objective： The treatment of subtrochanteric fractures is challenging and treatment modalities and implants are constantly evolving. This study attempts to revisit and compare extramedullary vs. intramedullary devices...Objective： The treatment of subtrochanteric fractures is challenging and treatment modalities and implants are constantly evolving. This study attempts to revisit and compare extramedullary vs. intramedullary devices in relatively young population. Methods： Thirty patients with subtrochanteric fractures were enrolled and treated with extramedullary or intramedullary devices and follow-up continued one year for clinico-radiological assessment. Results： The mean age of patients was 37,53 years. Most were males between 21-40 years. The dominant mode of injury was traffic accidents （66%）. Fractures were classified according to Russell-Taylor classification. Forty percent were Russell-Taylor type IA, 37% type IB and 23% type IIA. Average time to surgery was 3.6 days from the time of admission to hospital. Mean duration of surgery was 45 minutes for intramedullary device （group A） and 105 minutes for extramedullary device （group B）. Average blood loss was 100 ml in group A and 200 ml in group B. Mean duration of radiation exposure was 130 seconds and 140 seconds for groups A and B, while average duration of hospital stay was 12 days and 16 days respectively. Excellent results were seen in 47% of cases in group A and 33% of cases in group B. Conclusion： Intramedullary device is a reliable implant for subtrochanteric fractures. It has high rates of union with minimal soft-tissue damage. Intramedullary fixation has biological and biomechanical advantages, but surgery is technically demanding. Gradual learning and patience is needed to make this method truly rewarding.展开更多
Objective:To compare the outcomes of dynamic hip screws(DHS)and intramedullary nailing(IMN)in the treatment of extra-capsular metastatic carcinoma of the proximal femur.Methods:A retrospective case analysis method was...Objective:To compare the outcomes of dynamic hip screws(DHS)and intramedullary nailing(IMN)in the treatment of extra-capsular metastatic carcinoma of the proximal femur.Methods:A retrospective case analysis method was used to examine data of patients with proximal metastatic cancer of the femur who were treated with internal fixation in Department of Orthopaedics,Beijing Friendship Hospital,from January 2007 to December 2018.Blood loss,postoperative pain,functional score,length of stay,and survival rates were compared,and postoperative complications were assessed.Results:Complete follow-up data were available for 33 patients.The mean follow-up period was 12.2±3.6(range:9-32)months and the average age was 72.3±4.7(range:59-83)years old.There were 20 females and 13 males.Twenty-three patients had undergone IMN and 10 DHS,according to bone defects and the patient’s overall condition.The median survival time was 10 months in the IMN group and 11 months in the DHS group.Duration of surgery(t=-7.366,P<0.001)and length of hospital stay(t=-3.509,P<0.001)differed significantly between the two groups.There was one case of breakage of internal fixation in the IMN group.Conclusions:There was no significant difference between DHS and IMN in terms of surgical efficacy.IMN and DHS were different in terms of surgical time and hospital stay.However,due to the limited number of cases in this study,multi-factor analysis has not been performed and needs to be further verified in future analysis.When developing a surgical plan,it is recommended to consider the patient’s condition and the surgeon’s experience.展开更多
目的总结动力髋螺钉（dynamic hip screw,DHS）治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的临床应用及疗效.方法采用DHS内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折54例,随访6～18个月（平均10.2个月）,评估疗效.结果关节功能恢复较为满意,优良率为90.70%.结论 DHS是治疗粗隆...目的总结动力髋螺钉（dynamic hip screw,DHS）治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的临床应用及疗效.方法采用DHS内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折54例,随访6～18个月（平均10.2个月）,评估疗效.结果关节功能恢复较为满意,优良率为90.70%.结论 DHS是治疗粗隆间骨折最佳方法之一,具有固定牢固,可早期功能活动,降低并发症等优点.展开更多
目的系统评价经皮加压钢板(percutaneous compression plate,PCP)和动力髋螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)治疗股骨转子间骨折的疗效。方法计算机检索MEDLINE(1966年至2010年12月)、PUBMED(1974年至2010年12月)及中国生物医学文献数据库(1...目的系统评价经皮加压钢板(percutaneous compression plate,PCP)和动力髋螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)治疗股骨转子间骨折的疗效。方法计算机检索MEDLINE(1966年至2010年12月)、PUBMED(1974年至2010年12月)及中国生物医学文献数据库(1979年至2010年12月)、手工检索相关的中英文骨科杂志。收集PCP和DHS治疗股骨转子间骨折的随机对照试验和半随机对照试验,按Cochrane协作网推荐的方法进行系统评价。结果共纳入4个实验,随机对照试验3篇,半随机对照试验1篇,共557例,其中PCP246例,DHS311例。Meta分析显示:PCP组与DHS组手术时间(WMD=-10.96,95%CI-26.47～4.56,P=0.17)、术后感染率(RR=0.43,95%CI0.55～1.28,P=0.13)、术后死亡率(小于等于1年)(RR=0.88,95%CI 0.55～1.40,P=0.58)、住院时间(WMD=-0.77,95%CI-2.09～1.94,P=0.94)差异均无统计学意义。结论现有的临床研究证据显示,PCP组与DHS组在手术时间、术后感染率、术后死亡率、住院时间上并没有明显的优势。展开更多
文摘目的:探讨股骨近端防旋髓内钉(proximal femoral nail anti-rotation,PFNA)与动力髋螺钉(dynamic hipscrew,DHS)固定治疗股骨转子间骨折的疗效差异。方法:运用计算机检索Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE数据库、Elsevier数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据库以及手工检索相关文献的参考文献。所有检索截至2011年12月5日。收集PFNA与DHS固定比较治疗股骨转子间骨折随机对照试验的英文及中文文献,严格评价纳入研究的方法学质量并提取资料。统计软件采用RevMan5.0。结果:共纳入13项随机对照试验,共958例患者,其中PFNA组475例,DHS组483例。资料分析显示,PFNA固定与DHS固定比较,手术时间缩短[WMD=-21.38,95%CI(-33.050,-9.26),P<0.05]、术中失血量减少[WMD=-176.36,95%CI(-232.20,-120.52),P<0.05]、术后总并发症发生率降低[RR=0.46,95%CI(0.31,0.70),P<0.05]、术后内固定失效发生率降低[RR=0.27,95%CI(0.11,0.62),P<0.05]。结论:与DHS相比,PFNA能缩短平均手术时间,减少平均术中出血量,降低术后总并发症发生率以及术后内固定失效发生率;但目前尚无足够证据表明PFNA在减少平均住院时间、平均术后骨折愈合时间以及降低术后骨折发生率、髋内翻发生率、术后浅表切口感染发生率、术后其他并发症发生率和术后Harris评分优良率上要优于DHS。
文摘AIM To compare the operation time, blood loss, and early outcomes of acetabular components with and without the screw.METHODS Thirty patients who underwent cementless acetabular component with or without screw and whose follow-up exceeded one year period in total hip arthroplasty were evaluated. A posterior approach was used in all surgical procedures by one experienced surgeon. Demographic data, operation time, intra-and postoperative blood loss volume, follow-up clinical score, cup migration, and osteolysis were recorded. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed for testing the normality of study data. Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the intergroup differences. A P-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.RESULTS Acetabular components were used in 16(53.3%) patients with screw and 14(46.7%) without screw. After one year of follow-up, an osteolytic lesion of 3 mm was found in only one patient in the screw group. No cup migrationwas encountered. Intra-group mean Harris hip score significantly increased, but there was no significant intergroup difference. While the mean operation time of the screw group was 121.8 min(range; 95-140), it was 102.7 min(range; 80-120) in the no-screw group, and this difference was statistically significant(P = 0.002). The mean intraoperative/postoperative, and total blood loss were 556.6 mL(range: 350-800)/423.3 mL(range: 250-600), and 983.3 mL(range: 600-1350), respectively in the screw group; and 527 mL(range: 400-700)/456 mL(range: 230-600), and 983 mL(range: 630-1250), respectively in the no-screw group. The blood loss difference between the two groups was not significant. In the screw group, the operation time was 19.1 min longer than the no-screw group, and this difference was statistically significant.CONCLUSION Acetabular components with or without screw have similar results, but the use of screw increases the operation time significantly, while not changing the blood loss volume.
文摘[目的]探讨由髋关节镜下复位空心钉固定治疗Garden Ⅲ~Ⅳ型青壮年股骨颈骨折的临床疗效。[方法]回顾性分析2018年1月—2020年12月手术治疗的40例Garden Ⅲ-Ⅳ型青壮年股骨颈骨折患者的临床资料。根据医患沟通结果,18例采用髋关节镜下复位空心钉固定(镜下组),22例采用传统切开复位空心钉固定术(传统组)。比较两组围手术期、随访及影像结果。[结果]所有患者均顺利完成手术,镜下组手术时间显著长于传统组[(98.0±7.6) min vs (72.8±6.0) min, P<0.05],但镜下组切口总长度[(36.27±4.3) mm vs (94.7±5.8) mm, P<0.05]、透视次数[(3.1±0.8)次vs (7.2±1.5)次, P<0.05]、术中出血量[(38.7±5.6) ml vs (245.5±39.6) ml, P<0.05]、住院时间[(7.1±1.2) d vs (9.0±1.8) d, P<0.05]均显著优于传统组。术后随访平均(41.4±10.4)个月,镜下组完全负重活动时间显著早于传统组[(92.6±1.8) d vs (106.4±4.3) d, P<0.05]。随时间推移,两组VAS评分、Harris]评分、髋伸-屈ROM、髋内旋-外旋ROM均显著改善(P<0.05)。术前两组VAS评分的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),术后相应时间点,镜下组VAS评分、Harris评分、髋伸-屈ROM和髋内旋-外旋ROM均显著优于传统组(P<0.05)。影像方面,相应时间点,两组间Garden指数、颈干角、T?nnis髋OA分级差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。[结论]髋关节镜下复位空心钉固定治疗青壮年移位型股骨颈骨折可以在直视下进行骨折复位,术中出血少、手术创伤小、透视次数少、住院时间短、骨折愈合快、术后髋关节功能恢复好。
文摘Objective： The treatment of subtrochanteric fractures is challenging and treatment modalities and implants are constantly evolving. This study attempts to revisit and compare extramedullary vs. intramedullary devices in relatively young population. Methods： Thirty patients with subtrochanteric fractures were enrolled and treated with extramedullary or intramedullary devices and follow-up continued one year for clinico-radiological assessment. Results： The mean age of patients was 37,53 years. Most were males between 21-40 years. The dominant mode of injury was traffic accidents （66%）. Fractures were classified according to Russell-Taylor classification. Forty percent were Russell-Taylor type IA, 37% type IB and 23% type IIA. Average time to surgery was 3.6 days from the time of admission to hospital. Mean duration of surgery was 45 minutes for intramedullary device （group A） and 105 minutes for extramedullary device （group B）. Average blood loss was 100 ml in group A and 200 ml in group B. Mean duration of radiation exposure was 130 seconds and 140 seconds for groups A and B, while average duration of hospital stay was 12 days and 16 days respectively. Excellent results were seen in 47% of cases in group A and 33% of cases in group B. Conclusion： Intramedullary device is a reliable implant for subtrochanteric fractures. It has high rates of union with minimal soft-tissue damage. Intramedullary fixation has biological and biomechanical advantages, but surgery is technically demanding. Gradual learning and patience is needed to make this method truly rewarding.
基金Capital’s Funds for Health Improvement and Research(No.2018-1-2072)。
文摘Objective:To compare the outcomes of dynamic hip screws(DHS)and intramedullary nailing(IMN)in the treatment of extra-capsular metastatic carcinoma of the proximal femur.Methods:A retrospective case analysis method was used to examine data of patients with proximal metastatic cancer of the femur who were treated with internal fixation in Department of Orthopaedics,Beijing Friendship Hospital,from January 2007 to December 2018.Blood loss,postoperative pain,functional score,length of stay,and survival rates were compared,and postoperative complications were assessed.Results:Complete follow-up data were available for 33 patients.The mean follow-up period was 12.2±3.6(range:9-32)months and the average age was 72.3±4.7(range:59-83)years old.There were 20 females and 13 males.Twenty-three patients had undergone IMN and 10 DHS,according to bone defects and the patient’s overall condition.The median survival time was 10 months in the IMN group and 11 months in the DHS group.Duration of surgery(t=-7.366,P<0.001)and length of hospital stay(t=-3.509,P<0.001)differed significantly between the two groups.There was one case of breakage of internal fixation in the IMN group.Conclusions:There was no significant difference between DHS and IMN in terms of surgical efficacy.IMN and DHS were different in terms of surgical time and hospital stay.However,due to the limited number of cases in this study,multi-factor analysis has not been performed and needs to be further verified in future analysis.When developing a surgical plan,it is recommended to consider the patient’s condition and the surgeon’s experience.
文摘目的总结动力髋螺钉（dynamic hip screw,DHS）治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的临床应用及疗效.方法采用DHS内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折54例,随访6～18个月（平均10.2个月）,评估疗效.结果关节功能恢复较为满意,优良率为90.70%.结论 DHS是治疗粗隆间骨折最佳方法之一,具有固定牢固,可早期功能活动,降低并发症等优点.
