目的 探讨髋关节表面置换与全髋关节置换治疗股骨头缺血性坏死的疗效对比情况,为合理选择手术方法提供参考.方法 将60例股骨头缺血性坏死患者根据不同的手术方法分为治疗组与对照组,每组各30例.治疗组采用髋关节表面置换治疗,对照组采用全髋关节置换治疗.结果 两组的平均手术时间、术中和术后的总输血量比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).对照组术后切口大出血的机率高于治疗组(P＜0.05).两组人工全髋关节疗效评分(Harris评分)治疗前比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)；治疗后,治疗组有明显提高(P＜0.05).结论 相对于全髋关节置换,髋关节表面置换治疗股骨头缺血性坏死能在不增加创伤的基础上,减少术后切口大出血,同时提高随访Harris评分,值得推广应用.%Objective To discuss the therapeutic efficacy comparison hip resurfacing and total hip replacement in the treatment of avascular necrosis. Methods 60 patients with avascular necrosis were divided into the treatment group and the control group according the different surgical methods, each group had 30 cases. The treatment group were treated with hip resurfacing replacement, and the control group were treated with total hip replacement. Results The operation time, the in-traoperative and postoperative total amount of blood transfusion between the two groups had no significant statistical difference (P > 0.05). The probability of postoperative wound bleeding of the control group were more than the treatment group (P < 0.05), there was no significant difference of Harris score before treatment between the two groups, but the treatment group were improved significantly of Harris score after treatment (P < 0.05). Conclusion Compared with total hip replacement, total hip replacement in the treatment of avascular necrosis can not increase trauma, reduce the probability of postoperative wound bleeding and increase the Harris score of follow up that should be widely applied.
展开▼
