...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders >Proximal femoral nails anti-rotation versus dynamic hip screws for treatment of stable intertrochanteric femur fractures: an outcome analyses with a minimum 4?years of follow-up
【24h】

Proximal femoral nails anti-rotation versus dynamic hip screws for treatment of stable intertrochanteric femur fractures: an outcome analyses with a minimum 4?years of follow-up

机译:股骨近端钉抗旋转对比动力髋螺钉治疗稳定的股骨粗隆间股骨骨折:至少4年的随访结果分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Dynamic hip screws (DHSs) and proximal femoral nails anti-rotation (PFNAs) are well-documented implants for stable intertrochanteric femur fractures(IFFs); however, there is no consensus regarding which type of implant is the better option for stable IFFs. This study aimed to compare DHSs with PFNAs in the management of stable intertrochanteric fractures. Methods A retrospective study was performed in our institution. Between June, 2005 and November, 2015, 267 patients (267 hips) with stable IFFs (AO/OTA Type 3.1A1) were treated with a DHS or a PFNA. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were designed to focus on isolated stable IFFs in ambulatory patients. Follow-up was undertaken at 1, 3, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 36, 48 postoperative months, and at final follow-up. Radiograph outcomes were obtained at all visits. The primary outcome measure was re-operation rate. The secondary outcome was patient function, evaluated using Harris hip score (HHS). Tertiary outcomes included: intra- and post-operative orthopaedic complications. Results Two hundred twenty two patients (110 in the PFNA group and 112 in the DHS group) were evaluated with a mean follow-up period of 53?months (range, 48–60 months). There was an increased risk of reoperation after DHS in one-year follow-up: 0?% and 5.4?% for PFNA and DHS, respectively ( P =?0.029). The difference persisted with time: 6.4?% and 13.4?% at last follow-up (P?Conclusion Compared with PFNA device, DHS device might not be the preferred implant for stable intertrochanteric femur fractures.
机译:背景动态髋关节螺钉(DHS)和股骨近端钉防旋转(PFNA)是用于稳定股骨转子间股骨骨折(IFF)的有据可查的植入物。然而,关于哪种植入物是稳定IFF的更好选择尚无共识。本研究旨在比较DHS与PFNA在稳定的股骨转子间骨折的治疗中的作用。方法对我院进行回顾性研究。在2005年6月至2015年11月之间,用DHS或PFNA治疗了267例稳定IFF(AO / OTA 3.1A1型)的患者(267髋)。纳入和排除标准的设计重点在于非卧床患者中孤立的稳定IFF。术后1、3、12、15、18、21、24、36、48个月进行了随访,并进行了最终随访。每次访问均获得射线照相结果。主要结果指标是再次手术率。次要结果是患者功能,使用哈里斯髋关节评分(HHS)进行评估。第三级结局包括:术中和术后骨科并发症。结果对22例患者(PFNA组110例,DHS组112例)进行了平均随访,随访时间为53个月(48-60个月)。一年的随访中,DHS后再次手术的风险增加:PFNA和DHS分别为0%和5.4%(P = 0.029)。差异随时间持续存在:最后一次随访时为6.4%和13.4%(P结论)与PFNA装置相比,DHS装置可能不是稳定的股骨转子间骨折的首选植入物。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号