【摘要】：目的本臨床研究的目的是回顧性評價PFNA與InterTAN治療老年骨質(zhì)疏松性不穩(wěn)定型股骨轉(zhuǎn)子間骨折的臨床療效,通過分析臨床數(shù)據(jù)和討論兩種內(nèi)固定的特點,以比較兩種內(nèi)固定方式在臨床運(yùn)用中的優(yōu)劣性。方法(1)分組：收集2013年6月—2014年12月四川省人民醫(yī)院骨科住院的且滿足納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的老年骨質(zhì)疏松性不穩(wěn)定型股骨轉(zhuǎn)子間骨折37例患者。(2)方法：19例患者采用PFNA治療,18例患者采用InterTAN治療,術(shù)后兩組患者均給予同樣的治療方法和功能康復(fù)。(3)觀察內(nèi)容：比較兩組患者的手術(shù)時間、術(shù)中出血量、術(shù)后引流量、切口長度、住院時間、骨折臨床愈合時間、內(nèi)固定穩(wěn)定性以及術(shù)后髖關(guān)節(jié)功能Harris評分。結(jié)果術(shù)后隨訪3個月～15個月,平均9.6個月。(1)通過比較手術(shù)時間、術(shù)中出血量、術(shù)后引流量及骨折臨床愈合時間,可以得出兩組數(shù)據(jù)有差異(P0.05),具有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義,說明了PFNA組比InterTAN組手術(shù)時間短、術(shù)中出血少及術(shù)后引流量少,InterTAN組比PFNA組骨折臨床愈合時間短。(2)在內(nèi)固定穩(wěn)定性方面,PFNA組出現(xiàn)1例螺旋刀片退出,InterTAN組無螺釘退出,但兩組數(shù)據(jù)差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P0.05),這可能與收集的病例數(shù)量不多有關(guān),需要進(jìn)一步大樣本研究,因此InterTAN比PFNA的穩(wěn)定性可能更好。(3)通過比較切口長度、住院時間及術(shù)后髖關(guān)節(jié)功能Harris評分,可以得出兩組數(shù)據(jù)無差異(P0.05),不具有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義,說明了PFNA組與InterTAN組在切口長度、住院時間及術(shù)后髖關(guān)節(jié)功能Harris評分方面相近。結(jié)論(1)在老年骨質(zhì)疏松性不穩(wěn)定型股骨轉(zhuǎn)子間骨折的治療上,PFNA與InterTAN都是安全有效的內(nèi)固定方式,均具有手術(shù)創(chuàng)傷小、術(shù)中出血量少、術(shù)后引流量少、骨折固定牢靠、住院時間短及功能恢復(fù)好的優(yōu)點。(2)PFNA與InterTAN相互比較,又各有優(yōu)缺點。與InterTAN比較,PFNA的術(shù)中操作更加簡潔方便、手術(shù)時間更短、術(shù)中出血量更少及術(shù)后引流量更少。與PFNA比較,InterTAN的骨折臨床愈合時間更短及穩(wěn)定性可能更好。
[Abstract]:Objective to evaluate the clinical efficacy of PFNA and InterTAN in the treatment of unstable femoral intertrochanteric fracture in elderly patients, and to analyze the clinical data and discuss the characteristics of two internal fixation methods. To compare the advantages and disadvantages of two internal fixation methods in clinical application. Methods (1) A total of 37 elderly patients with unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures were collected from orthopaedic department of Sichuan Provincial people's Hospital from June 2013 to December 2014. (2) methods: 19 patients were treated with PFNA. 18 patients were treated with InterTAN. The two groups were given the same treatment method and functional rehabilitation. (3) observation: the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, incision length, hospital stay, fracture clinical healing time were compared between the two groups. Stability of internal fixation and Harris score of hip function after operation. Results the postoperative follow-up ranged from 3 months to 15 months with an average of 9.6 months. (1) by comparing the operative time, intraoperative bleeding volume, postoperative drainage volume and fracture healing time, the data of the two groups were significantly different (P0.05). The results showed that the operation time of PFNA group was shorter than that of InterTAN group, and the healing time of intern group was shorter than that of PFNA group. However, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (P0.05), which may be related to the small number of cases collected, so the stability of InterTAN may be better than that of PFNA. (3) by comparing the length of incision, Hospitalization time and postoperative hip function Harris score, can be obtained two groups of data have no difference (P0.05), there is no statistical significance, indicating that PFNA group and InterTAN group in incision length, hospitalization time and postoperative hip function Harris score is similar. Conclusion (1) both InterTAN and PFNA are safe and effective internal fixation methods in the treatment of unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly. Both have the advantages of less operative trauma, less intraoperative bleeding, less postoperative drainage and reliable fixation. The advantages of short hospitalization time and good functional recovery. (2) compared with InterTAN, PFNA has its own advantages and disadvantages. Compared with InterTAN, the intraoperative operation was more simple and convenient, the operation time was shorter, the amount of intraoperative bleeding was less and the postoperative drainage was less. The clinical healing time and stability of intertan fracture were shorter and more stable than PFNA.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：成都中醫(yī)藥大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：R687.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 竇書庭，馬國林，李海梅,馬躍飛;股骨距解剖與X線初步觀察[J];長治醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報;1995年02期

2 黨瑞山,陳爾瑜,蔡國君,黃會龍;股骨距的應(yīng)用解剖[J];解剖學(xué)雜志;2001年06期

3 嚴(yán)廣斌;;股骨距[J];中華關(guān)節(jié)外科雜志(電子版);2008年03期

4 雷林革;于進(jìn)祥;杜東鵬;李金翠;姜文雄;黃偉;;股骨轉(zhuǎn)子間骨折人工股骨頭置換術(shù)中股骨距的重建[J];臨床軍醫(yī)雜志;2010年01期

5 崔正禮;;骨水泥型人工股骨頭置換術(shù)治療高齡股骨粗隆間粉碎性骨折臨床觀察[J];山東醫(yī)藥;2010年03期

6 夏春波;秦小云;沈洪濤;李建全;劉源R，

本文編號：2244184