摘要
目的比较股骨近端防旋髓内钉（ proximal femoral nail antirotation, PFNA）和Inter—TAN两种内固定物治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效。方法对38例股骨粗隆间骨折患者进行回顾性研究，比较PFNA内固定（21例）与InterTAN内固定（17例）两种固定方式在手术时间、术中出血量、手术并发症的发生率及术后髋关节Harris功能评分之间的差异。结果PFNA组和InterTAN组术后均未出现内固定失败及髋内翻；手术时间PFNA组为（43．8±10．5）min，InterTAN组为（55．9±13．9）min，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）；术中出血量PFNA组为（205．9±99．3）ml，InterTAN组为（278．5±116．1）m1，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；髋关节Harris功能评分PFNA组为81．4±7．1，InterTAN组为83．1±7．5，差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论PFNA术中操作相对于InterTAN较简单；PFNA和InterTAN内固定治疗股骨粗隆骨折的临床疗效相似，均可取得较为满意的效果。
Objective To compare the therapeutic effect between proximal femoral nail antirotation （PFNA） and InterTAN nail in the treatment of intertroehanterie fractures. Methods The clinical data of 38 patients with intertrochanterie fractures experienced PFNA internal fixation （21 cases）or InterTAN internal fixation（ 17 cases）were retrospectively reviewed. The operative time,blood loss,occurrence of postoperative complications and Harris hip score in two groups were compared. Results There was no fixation failure and hip varus in both groups. The operative time was（43.8 ± 10.5） min in the PFNA group and（55.9± 13.9 min） in the InterTAN group（ P 〈 0.01 ）. The blood loss was （205.9 ± 99.3 ）ml in the PFNA group, while it was （ 278.5 ＋_ 116.1 ） ml in the InterTAN group （ P 〈 0.05 ）. The Harris Hip Score was （ 81.4±7.1 ） scores in the PFNA group and（83.1±7.5）scores in the InterTAN group and there was no statistical difference in Harris hip score between two groups （ P 〉 0.05 ）. Conclusion The procedure of PFNA is more simple than that of InterTAN. Both of PFNA and InterTAN could get good therapeutic effect for intertroehanterie hip frac- tures.
出处
《临床外科杂志》
2013年第7期542-544,共3页
Journal of Clinical Surgery
