摘要
目的比较研究微创行DHS与LCP治疗高龄股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效。方法回顾性分析微创行DHS及LCP内固定治疗高龄股骨粗隆间骨折58例,男26例,女32例;年龄70～102岁,平均年龄78.0岁。结果 DHS组28例,手术时间平均70min(60～90min);LCP组30例,手术时间平均55min(40～90min),两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。术中出血:DHS组平均出血100ml(50～300ml);LCP组平均70ml(50～150ml),两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。58例伤口均一期愈合。院内死亡1例,7例失访。50例获得6个月～3年的随访(平均16个月)。骨折愈合时间:DHS组10～16周,平均12周;LCP组10～12周,平均10.4周,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。按照黄公怡等的评价标准:DHS组优良率87.5%,LCP组优良率95%,两组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论微创行DHS与LCP内固定治疗高龄股骨粗隆间骨折都具有创伤小、固定稳定、骨折易愈合等优点,微创LCP钢板固定手术更容易操作,出血少,是更值得提倡的一种手术方法。
Objective To compare the effects of two mini-invasive methods with DHS and LCP in treating femoral intertrochanteric fracture of the senile patients. Methods A retrospective study of 58 eases of femoral intertrochanteric fracture was performed,from May 2006 to February 2009, male 26 cases, female 32 cases, average 78.0 years old （range 70 to 102 years old）. Depending on the technique of the biological fixation, the minimal invasion approach was used with DHS in 28 cases and LCP in 30 eases.Results The average bleeding volume in the operation was 100 ml in the DHS group, and 70 rnl in the LCP group （P〈0.01）.Fifty cases were followed up from 6 months to 3 years. Mean healing time of the fracture was 12 weeks with DHS and 10.4 weeks with LCP （P〈0.05）. According to standard of Huang Gongyi, the excellent and good rate of the DHS group was 87.5% ,and the LCP group was 95% （P〈0.05）.Conclusion Minimal invasion with DHS and LCP in treating femoral intertrochanteric fracture of the senile patients has the advantages of minimal invasion, less bleeding and rapid healing. LCP is better.
出处
《中国骨与关节损伤杂志》
2010年第6期484-486,共3页
Chinese Journal of Bone and Joint Injury
关键词
内固定
微创
LCP
股骨粗隆间
骨折
Internal fixation
Minimal invasion
Femoral interfrochanteric
Fracture
