本文關(guān)鍵詞： 股骨頭壞死 圍塌陷期 打壓植骨 關(guān)節(jié)鏡 腓骨支撐術(shù)　出處：《山東醫(yī)藥》2017年05期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：目的觀察關(guān)節(jié)鏡配合打壓植骨腓骨支撐術(shù)治療圍塌陷期股骨頭壞死的效果。方法將122例圍塌陷期非創(chuàng)傷性股骨頭壞死患者根據(jù)手術(shù)方式分為觀察組57例(57髖)與對照組65例(65髖)。觀察組于關(guān)節(jié)鏡監(jiān)視下行打壓植骨腓骨支撐術(shù)治療,對照組行打壓植骨腓骨支撐術(shù)治療。對比兩組切口長度、手術(shù)時間、術(shù)中出血量、拆線時間;術(shù)前及術(shù)后12、24、36個月采用Harris評分評價髖關(guān)節(jié)功能恢復(fù)情況;術(shù)后36個月比較兩組ACRO分期;術(shù)后36個月根據(jù)股骨頭壞死修復(fù)和塌陷程度對患者進行分級,Ⅰ級為好轉(zhuǎn),計算好轉(zhuǎn)率。結(jié)果與對照組比較,觀察組失血量大、手術(shù)時間長(P均0.05),兩組切口長度、拆線時間比較差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P均0.05)。術(shù)后36個月,觀察組Harris評分較對照組升高(P均0.05)。術(shù)后36個月兩組ACRO分期比較差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P0.05)。兩組好轉(zhuǎn)率比較差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P0.05),兩組ⅡB期、ⅡC期好轉(zhuǎn)率高于ⅢB期(P均0.05);觀察組ⅢB期好轉(zhuǎn)率高于對照組(P0.05)。結(jié)論關(guān)節(jié)鏡配合打壓植骨腓骨支撐術(shù)治療圍塌陷期股骨頭壞死有效,尤其對治療ⅢB期圍塌陷期股骨頭壞死有優(yōu)勢。
[Abstract]:Objective to observe the effect of arthroscopy combined with bone grafting and fibula support in the treatment of peri-collapse osteonecrosis of femoral head. Methods 122 cases of non-traumatic femoral head necrosis in peri-collapse period were divided into observation group (n = 57) (n = 57). 57 hips) and 65 cases (65 hips) in the control group. The treatment group was treated by fibula and bone grafting under arthroscopic monitoring. In the control group, the length of incision, the time of operation, the amount of blood lost during operation and the time of thread removal were compared between the two groups. Harris score was used to evaluate the recovery of hip function before and after operation at 12: 24 and 36 months after operation. 36 months after operation, ACRO staging was compared between the two groups. 36 months after operation, the patients were graded according to the degree of repair and collapse of femoral head necrosis, grade I was improved and the rate of improvement was calculated. Results compared with the control group, the blood loss in the observation group was larger than that in the control group. There was no significant difference in incision length and thread removal time between the two groups (P < 0.05). 36 months after operation, there was no significant difference between the two groups. The Harris score in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the ACRO staging between the two groups at 36 months after operation (P 0.05). There was no significant difference in the improvement rate between the two groups (P 0.05). The improvement rate of stage 鈪，

本文編號：1451977