| 李鹏 宋静 王明昊 李雪波 刘锁利 郭晓东.股骨近端抗旋髓内钉与第三代Gamma钉治疗股骨转子间骨折的
效果对比[J].,2014,14(27):5328-5330 |
| 股骨近端抗旋髓内钉与第三代Gamma钉治疗股骨转子间骨折的
效果对比 |
| Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Effects between the Proximal FemoralNail Antirotation and the Gamma Nail on the Treatment of IntertrochantericFractures |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 股骨近端抗旋转髓内钉 第三代Gamma 钉 股骨转子间骨折 |
| 英文关键词: Proximal femoral nail antirotation(PFNA) The third-generation Gamma nail Intertrochanteric fractures |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 817 |
| 全文下载次数: 1035 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的：探讨股骨近端抗旋转髓内钉与第三代Gamma钉治疗股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效，为骨科手术提供可借鉴的资料。方
法：2009 年4 月-2013 年3 月期间在我院接受治疗的40 例股骨转子间骨折患者，随机分为两组。其中，PFNA组20例患者采用股
骨近端抗旋转髓内钉质量，而Gamma 3组20例患者采用第三代Gamma 钉治疗。观察并比较两组患者的手术时间、影像增强剂
时间和失血量，术后评价复位质量和内置物位置，在随访中，记录术后并发症，包括股骨干骨折、切出、再次手术、肺炎、尿路感染、
脑梗塞、心肌梗塞和褥疮性溃疡等。另外，用Parker-Palmer 活动评分系统评价行走能力。结果：PFNA和Gamma 3 组在手术时间、
影响增强剂时间和失血量上没有差异(P>0.05)；Gamma 3组病例复位质量要好于PFNA组，差异显著且具有统计学意义(P<0.05)；
两组在内置物位置、行走能力和术后并发症上没有显著差异(P>0.05)。结论：PFNA与Gamma 3治疗股骨转子间骨折具有很好的
安全性和有效性，但Gamma3 可获得更好的复位质量，应进一步在临床推广。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective:Proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) and third-generation Gamma nail (Gamma 3) are widely used in
the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. However, it remains unclear which device achieves better clinical and radiographic outcomes
when treating intertrochanteric fractures.Methods:40 patients with the intertrochanteric fractures who were treated by PFNA in our
hospital from April 2009 to March 2013 were selected as the PFNA group, and another 20 patients with either who were treated by
Gamma 3 were chosen to be the Gamma 3 group. Then the operative time, image intensifier time and amount of blood loss were
recorded. Following surgery, we assessed reduction quality and implant position. At the final follow-up, postoperative complications,
including femoral shaft fracture, cutout, reoperation, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, cerebral infarction, cardiac infarction and
decubital ulcer, were recorded. In addition, walking ability was assessed by the Parker-Palmer mobility score.Results:No difference was
found in the operative time, image intensifier time and amount of blood loss between patients treated with PFNA and those treated with
Gamma 3. The reduction quality of fractures treated with Gamma 3 was better than those treated with PFNA. However, there were no
significant differences in implant position, walking ability and postoperative complications between the two groups. Although Gamma 3
resulted in better reduction quality, it did not provide any advantages in walking ability and postoperative complications when compared
with PFNA.Conclusion:Therefore, we conclude that both PFNA and Gamma 3 are safe and reliable devices for the treatment of
intertrochanteric fractures. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
