目的：探讨股骨近端抗旋髓内针（proximal femoral nail,PFNA）与动力髁钢板治疗转子骨折的疗效，以供临床参考。方法选择2010年8月～2012年7月收治的股骨转子骨折患者85例作为研究对象，随机分组。对照组接受PFNA治疗，观察组接受动力髁钢板治疗。术后随访1年，对比2组患者手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合时间和髋关节功能恢复情况的差异性。结果与对照组对比，观察组患者手术时间较长（93.68±14.85）min、术中出血量较大（283.96±40.12）mL、骨折愈合时间较短（97.32±9.65）d，差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。对比2组患者术后1年Harris髋关节评分发现，组间差异无统计学意义。结论 PFNA与动力髁钢板治疗转子骨折后患者髋关节功能均得到良好的恢复。两种内固定方法各有优势，其中PFNA内固定手术时间短、术中出血量少，动力髁钢板内固定术后愈合快，在今后的临床工作中根据具体病情选择适合的内固定方法。%Objective Investigate the clinical effect of proximal femoral nail ( PFNA ) and dynamic condylar screw in the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures, for clinical references. Methods 85 cases with femoral intertrochanteric fractures patients in Aug. 2010 to Jul. 2012 in our hospital were choosed as research objects, randomly grouping. The control group was received PFNA treatment, the observe group was received dynamic condylar screw treatment. All cases were followed up 1 year later. The operation time, amount of bleeding, fracture healing andhip joint Harris score of the two groups were compared. Results Compared with the control group, Compared with the control group, longer surgical patients in the observation group (93.68 ± 14.85)min, greater blood loss (283.96 ± 40.12)mL, fracture healing time is shorter (97.32 ± 9.65)d, has statistically significant differences (P<0.05). Compared of The hip joint Harris score of the two groups has no significant differences. Conclusion PFNA and dynamic condylar screw in the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures has good clinical effect in hip joint recovery. Two operation has advantage respectively, the operation time of PFNA is short and the amount of bleeding is little. The healing time of dynamic condylar screw fracture is short. The appropriate operation mode for femoral intertrochanteric fractures will be choosed in clinical work.
展开▼
