PF-LCP PFNA及DHS治疗不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较

摘要

目的 比较股骨近端锁定加压板(PF-LCP)、防旋股骨近端髓内钉(PFNA)、动力髋螺钉(DHS)治疗临床不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折临床疗效.方法 回顾性分析2012年5月至2016年1月93例不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折患者,根据所用内固定治疗方式不同,将其分为PF-LCP治疗组、PFNA治疗组、DHS治疗组,比较三组临床疗效及预后情况.结果 与PF-LCP治疗组、DHS治疗组比较,PFNA治疗组手术切口长度、术中出血量、手术时间明显较少,差异有统计学意义(P0.05).与DHS治疗组比较,PF-LCP治疗组、PFNA治疗组术后引流量、骨折愈合时间明显较少(P0.05).PF-LCP治疗组术后并发症发生率为6.45%,低于PFNA治疗组(10.00%)及DHS治疗组(18.75%),但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 PFNA治疗不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折创伤小、操作简单、固定牢固,更有利于患者恢复.%Objective To?compare?the?clinical?efficacy?of?proximal?femoral?locking?compression?plate?(PF-LCP),proximal?femoral?nail?(PFNA)?and?dynamic?hip?screw?(DHS)?in?the?treatment?of?unstable?intertrochanteric?fracture?of?femur.?Method A?retrospective?analysis?of?93?cases?of?unstable?intertrochanteric?fractures?admitted?to?our?hospital?in?May?2012~January?2016?was?conducted.?According?to?the?treatment?of?internal?fixation,they?were?divided?into?PF-LCP?treatment?group,PFNA?treatment?group,DHS?treatment?group,and?the?three?groups?of?clinical?efficacy?and?prognosis?were?compared.?Result? Compared?with?PF-LCP?treatment?group?and?DHS?treatment?group,the?length?of?incision,intraoperative?blood?loss?and?operation?time?of?PFNA?treatment?group?were?significantly?decreased(P0.05).?Compared?with?DHS?group,the?time?of?drainage?and?fracture?healing?were?significantly?lower?in?PF-LCP?group?and?PFNA?group(P0.05).?The?incidence?of?postoperative?complications?in?the?PF-LCP?group?was?6.45%,which?lower?than?that?in?the?PFNA?treatment?group?and?the?DHS?group(10.00%,18.75%),but?the?difference?was?not?statistically?significant(P>0.05).?Conclusion? PFNA?treatment?of?unstable?intertrochanteric?fractures?of?the?femur?is?small,simple?operation,fixed?firmly,more?conducive?to?the?recovery?of?patients.