摘要
目的:探讨PFNA内固定治疗股骨转子间骨折使用不同体位的可行性及相关指标对比。方法:回顾性分析38例股骨转子间骨折在不同体位行PFNA内固定,分为2组,其中A组20例采用骨科牵引床,患者仰卧位。B组18例,患者侧卧位,不使用牵引床。结果:38例均获随访,时间5～18个月。在切口长度,手术难易程度,骨折复位程度,术中对助手的要求,术后髋关节功能评分等方面均有显著性差异,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。其中A组骨折复位程度明显优于B组,且对助手的要求低于B组[1],而B组在手术难易程度方面可降低手术困难,但对助手的要求较A组高,2者在手术时间,术中出血量,术中照片,摆体位的时间,骨折平均愈合时间方面没有显著性差异。结论:对EvansI型、II型及无明显移位的III型骨折可侧卧位,不使用牵引床手术。而对EvansIII型及IV型及V型骨折伴明显移位,并且复位较困难的骨折需采用骨科牵引床,患者仰卧位手术。
Objectlve：To study the PIZNA internal fixation of femoral fracture between rotor using different position of feasibility and related index contrast. Methods：A retrospective analysis of 38 cases of femoral fracture between rotor in different position line PlZNA internal fixation, divided into two groups, including A group of 20 patients with bone traction bed, patients supine position. B group of 18 cases, patients lateral position, do not use traction bed.Results：38 cases have been followed up, time 5 - 18 months. In the incision length, operation difficulty degree, the fracture degree, intraoperative to assistant requirements, postoperative hip function score were significant difference, the difference was statistically significant （P 〈 0.05）. The fracture degree of group A was better than group B, and assistant to the requirement of less than group B （1）, and group B in the operation difficulty degree can reduce the operation difficulty, but to the requirements of the assistant is A group of high, both in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative photos, pendulum position time, fracture average healing time had no significant difference.Conclusion：The Evans type I and type II and type III has no obvious shift of fractures could be lateral position, do not use traction bed operation. But to EvansIII type and type IV and V fracture with obvious shift, and reset more difficult fracture must be adopted to bone traction bed, the patient supine surgery.
出处
《中国伤残医学》
2012年第12期6-7,共2页
Chinese Journal of Trauma and Disability Medicine
