發(fā)布時間：2018-01-04 16:11

  本文關鍵詞：三種內(nèi)固定方法治療股骨轉(zhuǎn)子間骨折的臨床療效對比分析　出處：《鄭州大學》2016年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

  更多相關文章： 亞洲型股骨近端抗旋髓內(nèi)釘(PFNA-Ⅱ) Gamma釘 Inter TAN釘 股骨轉(zhuǎn)子間骨折

【摘要】：目的對比三種內(nèi)固定PFNA-Ⅱ(亞洲型股骨近端抗旋髓內(nèi)釘)、Gamma釘、Inter TAN釘治療股骨轉(zhuǎn)子間骨折的臨床效果,為以后的股骨轉(zhuǎn)子間骨折的手術治療提供相對有效的參考數(shù)據(jù)。方法回顧性分析鄭大一附院骨外科自2011年11月至2015年1月手術治療股骨轉(zhuǎn)子間骨折的85例病人,女性40例,男性45例,年齡最大89歲,最小41歲,平均65.8歲,所有患者入院后均拍攝雙髖標準正位片及患髖側(cè)位片,按AO分型,A1型30例,A2型32例,A3型23例,其中采用PFNA-Ⅱ固定35例,采用Gamma釘固定22例,采用Inter TAN釘固定28例,全是單側(cè)閉合性類型的骨折。手術后對照評估三組患者手術的時間、手術中X線透視的次數(shù)、手術中出血量、術后負重時間、術后骨折愈合時間、術后并發(fā)癥、術后6個月髖關節(jié)Harris評分、術后12月髖關節(jié)Harris評分等8個維度應用統(tǒng)計軟件進行對照分析三種髓內(nèi)釘在股骨轉(zhuǎn)子間骨折手術治療的效果。結(jié)果三組的患者手術都順利完成,均得到12-18個月的術后隨訪,平均隨訪時間為13.1個月,且無一失訪。三組患者手術時間的比較:PFNA-Ⅱ組時間為52.20±12.8min,Gamma釘組時間為76.24±15.3min,Inter TAN組時間為61.23±10.05min三組患者手術時間的差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義(P0.05),其中用時間最短的為PFNA-Ⅱ組,其次為Inter TAN組,用時最多的是Gamma釘組;三組術中X線透視次數(shù)的比較:PFNA-Ⅱ組次數(shù)為8.60±1.1次,Gamma釘組時間為12.10±0.80次,Inter TAN組時間為8.40±0.90次,PFNA-Ⅱ組、Inter TAN組分別與Gamma釘組比較患者術中透視次數(shù)的差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義(P0.05),但PFNA-Ⅱ組和Inter TAN組兩組相比較,患者術中透視次數(shù)無統(tǒng)計學差異(PO.05);三組患者術中出血量的比較:PFNA-Ⅱ組的出血量為96.80±58.40ml,Gamma釘組時間為152.30±108.60ml,Inter TAN組時間為116.23±43.55ml,三組患者術中出血量的差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義(P0.05),其中出血量最少的為PFNA-Ⅱ組,其次為Inter TAN組,出血量最多的是Gamma釘組;三組患者術后骨折愈合時間的比較:PFNA-Ⅱ組的愈合時間為13.40±3.10周,Gamma釘組愈合時間為14.20±3.20周,Inter TAN組時間為11.10±2.50周,PFNA-Ⅱ組、Gamma釘組分別與Inter TAN組比較患者術后骨折愈合時間的差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義(P0.05),Inter TAN組的愈合需要時間最短,但PFNA-Ⅱ組和Gamma釘組兩組相比較,患者術后骨折愈合時間無統(tǒng)計學差異(PO.05);三組患者術后負重時間比較:PFNA-Ⅱ組的負重時間為41.55±22.52d,Gamma釘組負重時間為40.89±20.94d,Inter TAN組負重時間為40.15±28.04d,三組患者術后負重時間無統(tǒng)計學差異(PO.05);三組患者術后6個月Harris評分比較中,PFNA-Ⅱ組、Gamma釘組分別與Inter TAN組比較患者術后6個月Harris評分的差異具有統(tǒng)計學意義(P0.05),Inter TAN組的評分最高,但PFNA-Ⅱ組和Gamma釘組兩組相比較,患者術后6個月Harris評分無統(tǒng)計學差異(PO.05);在術后12個月Harris評分上三者無明顯的差別。三組患者術后并發(fā)癥上的比較:所有被隨訪的患者都沒有出現(xiàn)死亡、骨折延遲愈合、頭頸短縮、髖內(nèi)翻、股骨干骨折、內(nèi)固定物周圍骨折、內(nèi)固定物失效及斷裂、切口感染、切口不愈合、肺栓塞、褥瘡等并發(fā)癥,三組患者術后并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率差異無統(tǒng)計學意義。結(jié)論1、在治療股骨轉(zhuǎn)子間骨折時,PFNA-Ⅱ、Gamma釘、Inter TAN釘這三種髓內(nèi)釘都有較好的療效,其中在術后下地負重時間、術后12個月Harris評分及術后并發(fā)癥上三者無明顯的差別,因此三種手術方式都可以盡可能的早期鍛煉,縮短恢復時間,減少并發(fā)癥的發(fā)生;2、PFNA-Ⅱ和其他兩組相比在手術時間較短和術中出血量較少,減輕了患者的“二次打擊”,盡可能減少創(chuàng)傷。且PFNA-Ⅱ組和Inter TAN釘組的術中透視次數(shù)少,從而大大減輕輻射對患者的危害,也對醫(yī)護工作者也有了很大的保護作用;Inter TAN釘組相比其他兩組的優(yōu)勢在術后骨折愈合時間較短和術后6個月Harris評分較高,因而早期的愈合有較大的優(yōu)勢。
[Abstract]:Objective to compare the three kinds of internal fixation of PFNA- (Asian proximal femoral nail anti rotation), Gamma nail, clinical effect of treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of Inter TAN nail, femur after fracture between surgical treatment and provide reference data relatively effective. Methods a retrospective analysis of the 1st Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from November 2011 to January 2015 in bone surgery surgical treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures in 85 patients, 40 cases were female, 45 were male, age biggest 89 years old, the minimum age of 41, with an average of 65.8 years. All patients were admitted to the hospital from hip standard anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of the hip, according to AO classification, 30 cases of type A1, 32 cases of A2 type, 23 cases of type A3, which uses PFNA- II 35 cases were fixed with Gamma nails, 22 cases were fixed with Inter and TAN nail fixation in 28 cases, all closed unilateral type fractures. Evaluation of three groups of patients with operation time after surgery, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, the amount of bleeding during operation, Postoperative weight-bearing time, fracture healing time after operation, postoperative complications, postoperative Harris hip score at 6 months, compared with three kinds of intramedullary nails in the effect of surgical treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the femur in December Harris hip score of 8 dimensions using statistical software after surgery. Results three patients surgery successfully completed, were 12-18 months of follow-up, the mean follow-up time was 13.1 months, and no one lost. Compared three groups of patients with operation time: PFNA- group II time was 52.20 + 12.8min, Gamma nail group time was 76.24 + 15.3min, Inter TAN 61.23 + 10.05min group time difference of three groups of patients the operation time was statistically significant (P0.05), one of the shortest time for the PFNA- II group, followed by Inter TAN group, with most of the Gamma nail group; compare the X-ray fluoroscopy number of the three groups: PFNA- group II number is 8.60 + 1.1, Gamma nail group was 1 2.10 + 0.80, Inter group TAN time was 8.40 + 0.90, PFNA- II group, Inter TAN group and Gamma group compared with the difference of nail fluoroscopy during operation in patients with statistical significance (P0.05), but the PFNA- II group and Inter TAN group compared two groups of patients with intraoperative fluoroscopy times had no statistical difference (PO.05); compare the amount of bleeding in the three groups: the amount of bleeding of PFNA- group was 96.80 + 58.40ml, Gamma nail group time was 152.30 + 108.60ml, Inter of TAN group was 116.23 + 43.55ml, the difference was statistically significant amount of bleeding in the three groups (P0.05), one of the least amount of bleeding PFNA- II group, followed by Inter TAN group, the amount of bleeding is the most Gamma nail group; compare the fracture healing time of three groups of patients: PFNA- II Group healing time was 13.40 + 3.10 weeks, Gamma nail group healing time was 14.20 + 3.20 weeks, Inter TAN group time was 11.10 + 2.50 weeks. PFNA- II group, Gam Ma nail group and Inter TAN group compared with postoperative fracture healing time was statistically significant difference (P0.05), Inter TAN group healing time is short, but the PFNA- group and Gamma nail group compared the two groups, there was no significant difference in fracture healing time after surgery (PO.05); comparison of loading time of patients the three groups after surgery: PFNA- II group loading time was 41.55 + 22.52d, Gamma nail group loading time was 40.89 + 20.94d, Inter group TAN loading time was 40.15 + 28.04d, three groups of patients with postoperative weight-bearing time no statistical difference (PO.05); comparison of Harris score at 6 months after operation in the three groups, PFNA- in group II, with statistical significance Gamma nail group and Inter TAN group of patients after 6 months Harris score difference (P0.05), Inter TAN group was the highest, but the PFNA- group and Gamma nail group, compared two groups of patients after 6 months Harris score was no significant difference (P O.05); in 12 months after surgery, Harris score of three had no obvious difference. The complications between the three groups of patients with postoperative follow-up: all patients had no death, delayed fracture healing, short neck, hip varus, femoral shaft fracture, periprosthetic fracture, internal fixation failure and fracture, incision infection, incision healing, pulmonary embolism, bedsore and other complications of postoperative complications in the three groups had no statistically significant difference in the incidence rate of 1. In conclusion, the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture, PFNA- II, Gamma nail, Inter nail TAN these three kinds of intramedullary nails have good curative effect, the postoperative under the loading time, there is no significant difference between Harris scores at 12 months after surgery and postoperative complications in three, so three kinds of operation can be as much as possible early exercise, shorten recovery time, reduce the incidence of complications; 2, PFNA- II and compared to the other two groups in the operation time is Short and less bleeding, reduce the patient's "two hit", as far as possible to reduce trauma. And the perspective PFNA- II group and Inter TAN nail group intraoperative number, thus greatly reduce the radiation harm to patients, but also for medical workers also have a great protective effect; Inter TAN nail group compared to the other two groups the advantages of shorter recovery time and postoperative 6 months Harris score higher in the postoperative fracture, thus early healing has a greater advantage.

【學位授予單位】：鄭州大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：R687.3

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 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)學院學報;1995年02期

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

3 嚴廣斌;;股骨距[J];中華關節(jié)外科雜志(電子版);2008年03期

4 雷林革;于進祥;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：1379119