Objective To explore the clinical effect of the treatment of locking compression plate( LCP ) and dynamic hip screw( DHS ) for intertrochanteric fractures. Methods 88 cases of intertrochanteric fractures were randomly divided into LCP group and DHS group, with 44 cases in each group. The patients' clinical efficacies of two groups were compared. Results Compared with DHS group, the operative time and blood loss of LCP group were significantly reduced, there were significant differences ( P <0. 05 ). However, compared with DHS group, LCP group had increased quality, decreased healing time, fixation broken loose, cutting the femoral head, limb shortening, varus hip ratio and other complications were decreased, but the difference was not statistically significant P >0. 05 ). Conclusions LCP and DHS are two effective treatment methods for intertrochanteric fractures. And compared with DHS, LCP has a broader scope. It has better clinical efficacy.%目的 探讨锁定钢板和动力髋螺钉治疗股骨转子骨折的临床疗效.方法 将88例股骨转子骨折患者随机分为锁定钢板组(44例)和动力髋螺钉组(44例),对两组患者的临床治疗效果进行比较分析.结果 与动力髋螺钉组比较,锁定钢板组手术时间和术中出血量均较少,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).与动力髋螺钉组比较,锁定钢板组优良率高,愈合时间有所减少,内固定断裂松动、股骨头切割、肢体短缩、髋内翻等并发症的发生率均较低,但差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 锁定钢板和动力髋螺钉均为股骨转子骨折的有效治疗方式,但锁定钢板比动力髋螺钉的适用范围更广,临床疗效更好.
展开▼
