Clinical Research of Dynamic Hip Screw And Proximal Femoral Nail In Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fractures
- Author:
- No author available
- Journal Title:
- CHINESE JOURNAL OF PRIMARY MEDICINE AND PHARMACY
- Issue:
- 6
- DOI:
- 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1008-6706.2011.06.001
- Key Word:
- 股骨骨折;骨折固定术,内;动力髋螺钉;股骨近端髓内钉;Femoral fractures;Fracture fixation,internal;Dynamic hip screw;Proximal femoral nail
Abstract： Objective To explore the curative effect of dynamic hip screw(DHS) and proximal femoral nail (PFN)in treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Methods Dynamic hip screw(DHS) group is A group:30 patients, proximal femoral nail( PFN) group is B group:30 patients. In the respect of the average length of the incision, operation time,blood loss,X-ray exposure times,postoperative drainage volume,blood transfusion volume,antibiotics usage time,hospitalization time,postoperative ambulation time,healing time of fracture,criteria of Harris hip function score after half a year,complication rate,this paper made the comparative analysis of clinical efficacy and statistical analysis between the two groups. Results 60 patients were followed up for 9 months to 4 years, with the average of 2 years and 3 months and no death. The average length of the incision, operation time, blood loss, X-ray exposure times, postoperative drainage volume,blood transfusion volume, DHS group were( 13. 4 ± 1. 9) cm, (92. 8 ± 13. 0) min, (321.0±39.4)ml,(5. 8 ± 1.2)times, (84.1 ± 10. 1)ml, (316.6 ±79. 1 )ml;PFN group were(7.6 ± 1.1 )cm,(59. 0±6. 9)min, (204. 6 ±32. 7) ml, (5.0 ±0.9) times, (53. 9 ± 8. 7) ml, ( 196. 6 ± 18. 2) ml; the differences between two groups were statistically significant ( all P ＜ 0. 05 ) . Hospitalization time, postoperative ambulation time, healing time of fracture,DHS group were(6.2±3.7)d,(17.8±1.8)d,(69. 8 ± 12. 3)d, (13. 0 ± 1. 6) weeks,PFN group were(4.7 ±2. 6)d,( 16.0 ±2. 2)d, (46.9 ±4. 9)d, (11. 3 ±0.7) weeks, the difference was statistically significant (all P＜0. 05). Antibiotic use of time,hip function(Harris score standard)excellent and good rate after half a year, there's no significant difference between the two groups( all P ＞ 0. 05). Complication rate, DHS group:40% ; PFN group: 10%. The difference was statistically significant (P ＜ 0. 05). Conclusion Intertrochanteric fracture fixation PFN group had an advantage of smaller surgical trauma,less bleeding,shorter healing time,more rapid postoperative recovery,lower complication rate and other characteristics comparing with the DHS group. So it was worth being recommended for a wider use.
- [1]卢华定,蔡道章,曾庆彩,等.动力髋螺钉治疗股骨转子周围骨折[J].2005,(11).
- [2]谢京平,刘志远,朱武平,等.PFN内固定治疗粗隆间骨折[J].2006,(3).
- [3]沈海敏,梁承伟,范永前,等.DHS、Gamma钉和PFN治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的临床研究[J].2007,(2).
- [4]李晓彬,刘展亮,丘靖,等.动力髋螺钉内固定法治疗股骨粗隆间骨折83例疗效分析[J].2007,(20).
- [5]徐永强,王龙滨,蒋建新.Gamma钉与动力髋螺钉（DHS）治疗股骨转子周围骨折并发症原因分析[J].2004,(4).
- [6]张纯,贺西京,兰宾尚,等.老年不稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折动力髋治疗的疗效分析[J].2005,(4).
- [7]张伟佳,吴克俭,王富,等.带锁髓内钉治疗陈旧性股骨干骨折并发症及防治[J].2003,(21).
- [8]张德,黄耀斌,汪璟.微创锁定钢板治疗股骨粗隆间不稳定性骨折[J].2010,(3).
- [9]权日,徐国洲,尹庆水,等.股骨转子间骨折治疗分析[J].2001,(12).
- [10]王宗仁,刘长贵,王宝军,等.股骨近端带锁髓内钉在粗隆间骨折的应用[J].2002,(3).
- [11]洪全明,王银喜,叶刚.DHS治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的若干问题及对策[J].2008,(1).
- [12]刘亚平,庞尊平.DHS内固定治疗中老年股骨转子间骨折[J].2006,(10).
- [13]李旗,沈惠良,雍宜民,等.国产短重建钉治疗老年人股骨转子间骨折[J].2004,(3).
- [14]朱锦宇,朱庆生,韩一生,等.老年不稳定型转子间骨折的内固定选择及术后并发症原因分析[J].2005,(6).
- [15]张宪,张育民,李毅,等.股骨近端髓内钉与动力髋螺钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的对比研究[J].2006,(10).
- [16]Boldin C,Szyszkowitz R,Seibert FJ,etc.The proximal femoral nail (PFN)--a minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a prospective study of 55 patients with a follow-up of 15 months.[J].2003,74(1).
- [17]Willoughby R.Dynamic hip screw in the management of reverse obliquity intertrochanteric neck of femur fractures.[J].2005,36(1).
- [18]Van der-Werken-C,Bosch AM,Simmermacher RK.The AO/ASIF-proximal femoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures.[J].1999,30(5).
- [19]Hirvensalo E,Pajarinen J,Lindahl J,etc.Femoral shaft medialisation and neck-shaft angle in unstable pertrochanteric femoral fractures.[J].2004,28(6).
- [20]Schemitsch E,Jonsson A,Bhandari M.Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails versus compression hip screws in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a meta-analysis.[J].2009,23(6).
- [21]徐卫东.股骨重建型交锁髓内钉闭合固定股骨粗隆下骨折[J].1999,(5).
- [22]J K, Jones,P V, Chode,A, Best,etc.Mortality of patients following hip fractures in Barbados.[J].2004,53(2).
- [23]Saudan M,Stern R,Hoffmeyer P,etc.Treatment of reverse oblique and transverse intertrochanteric fractures with use of an intramedullary nail or a 95 degrees screw-plate: a prospective, randomized study.[J].2002,84/A(3).
- [24]H M, Klinger,M H, Baums,M, Eckert,etc.[A comparative study of unstable per- and intertrochanteric femoral fractures treated with dynamic hip screw (DHS) and trochanteric butt-press plate vs. proximal femoral nail (PFN)].[J].2005,130(4).
- [25]Herbert Kaufer.Mechanics of the Treatment of Hip Injuries[J].1980,146(&NA;).
- [26]Berry DJ,Israel TA,Haidukewych GJ.Reverse obliquity fractures of the intertrochanteric region of the femur.[J].2001,83/A(5).
- [27]E M, EVANS.The treatment of trochanteric fractures of the femur.[J].1949,31B(2).