期刊文献+

两种评分系统对髋臼后壁骨折的预后评价 被引量:3

Prognostic evaluation of posterior wall fractures of the acetabulum by two scoring systems
下载PDF
导出
摘要 [目的]采用2种评分系统对髋臼后壁骨折术后Ⅰ期疗效的信息进行比较。[方法]观察32位髋臼后壁骨折术后随访至少1年以上患者。采用the short form(SF)-36量表8项独立指标评估整体功能疗效及改良Merle d’Aubigné评分法评估临床疗效。SF-36得分与以往文献提供的正常参考值进行比较,并分析改良Merle d’Aubigne得分与SF-36各纬度得分的相关性。[结果]平均Merle d’Aubign得分是16.28(13~18,标准差:1.3),显示临床疗效优良。SF-36各纬度值比参考值都明显下降,有显著统计学意义(P〈0.01)。改良Merle d’Aubigné评分与躯体角色(role physical,RP)、躯体功能(physical functioning,PF)、情感角色(role emotional,RE)得分之间为正相关,Spearman相关系数分别是0.661、0.421、0.385,与其他纬度之间无相关性。[结论]改良Merle d’Aubigné评分法对评估髋臼骨折患者术后髋关节功能有临床意义,但在评估整体功能疗效上受限制。SF-36评分可全面测评患者术后各方面功能。对髋臼骨折病人围手术期要积极采取心理保健治疗。 [ Objective]To evaluate the outcome inforation provided by two scoring systems after operative treatment of elementary posterior wall fractures of the acetabulum. [ Method ] Thirty,two patients with elementary posterior wall fracture of the acetabulum were included in the study. Functional outcomes were assessed with use of the eight health dimensions of the short form (SF) -36, and clinical outcomes were evaluated with use of the modified Merle d'Aubigne score. The SF- 36 scores were compared with previously reported normal values and the correlation was analyzed between the modified Merle d' Aubign' score and score of each SF- 36 health dimension. [ Result]The mean modified Merle d'Aubign6 score was 16.28 (range 13 -18,SD 1. 3 ), indicating overall good -to -excellent clinical results. However, all SF -36 health dimensions were significatly lower than the expected forms ,with a significant statistical difference( P 〈0.01 ). There was a positive correlation between the modified Merle d' Aubigne score and physical functioning(PF) ,role physical(RP) and role emotional(RE). The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was O. 661,0.421 and 0. 385, respectively. There was no correlation with other SF - 36 health dimensions. [ Conclusion ] Although the modified Merle d'Aubigne score is valuable for evaluating isolated hip function in patients with acetabular fracture,its shortcoming is use as a method for evaluating total functional outcome. SF - 36 can appraise all aspects of postoperative function. Psychological health care should be carried out at perioperation.
出处 《中国矫形外科杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2008年第20期1538-1540,共3页 Orthopedic Journal of China
关键词 髋臼 骨折 SF-36 Merle d’Aubigné 功能 acetabulum fracture SF - 36 Merle d'Aubigne function
  • 相关文献

参考文献12

  • 1Kirschner S,Wahher M, Bohm D,et al. German short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire ( SMFA - D ) : comparison with the SF -36 and WOMAC in a prospective evaluation in patients with primary osteoarthritis undergoing total knee arthroplasty [ J ]. Rheumatol Int ,2003,1 : 15 - 20.
  • 2Moed BR, Willson Carr SE, Watson JT. Results of operative treatment of fractures of the posterior wall of the acetabulum [J].J Bone Joint Surg (Am) ,2002,5:752 -758.
  • 3Moed BR, Yu PH, Gruson KI. Functional outcomes of acetabular fractures[J]. J Bone Joint Surg(Am) ,2003,10 : 1879 - 1883.
  • 4李宁秀,刘朝杰,李俊,任晓晖.四川省城乡居民SF-36评价参考值[J].华西医科大学学报,2001,32(1):43-47. 被引量:395
  • 5Eisler J, Cornwall R, Strauss E, et al. Outcomes of elderly patients with nondisplaced femoral neck fractures[ J ]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2002,6:52 - 58.
  • 6赵成钢,彭东义,赫勇,杜勇,栾国权,张世斌.可吸收螺钉治疗髋臼后壁骨折[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2006,14(2):158-159. 被引量:4
  • 7Swiontkowski MF, Engelberg R, Martin DP, et al. Short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire : validity, reliability, and responsiveness[ J]. J Bone Joint Surg(Am) , 1999,9 : 1245 - 1260.
  • 8Pynsent PB. Choosing an outcome measure [ J ]. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) ,2001,8:792 - 794.
  • 9刘朝杰,李宁秀,任晓晖,李俊,张骏,孙丁.36条目简明量表在中国人群中的适用性研究[J].华西医科大学学报,2001,32(1):39-42. 被引量:308
  • 10Aziz VATANSEVER, Ugur OZIC, Guvenir OKCU. Assessment of quality of life of patients after hcmiarthroplasty for proximal femoral fractures [ J ]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc,2005 ,3 :237 - 242.

二级参考文献10

共引文献651

同被引文献47

  • 1韦懿芸,颜艳,王多劳,郭艳芳,张磊,孙振球.中文版SF-36在社区老年人生存质量评价中的应用[J].中南大学学报(医学版),2006,31(2):184-188. 被引量:98
  • 2田玉香,廉萍.髋臼骨折患者围手术期康复训练的效果[J].中国康复,2006,21(5):339-339. 被引量:4
  • 3Prevezas N. Evolution of pelvic and acetabular surgery from ancient to modern times. Injury. 2007;38(4):397-409.
  • 4Tibbs BM, Kopar P, Dente CJ, et al. Acetabular and isolated pelvic ring fractures: a comparison of initial assessment and outcome. Am Surg. 2008;74(6):538-541.
  • 5Gnsslen A, Steinke B, Krettek C. Internal fixation of acetabular posterior wall fractures. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2009;21(3):283-295.
  • 6Porter SE, Schroeder AC, Dzugan SS, et al. Acetabular fracture patterns and their associated injuries. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22(3):165-170.
  • 7Harvie P, Chesser TJ, Ward AJ. The Bristol regional pelvic and acetabular fracture service: workload implications of managing the polytraumatised patient. Injury. 2008;39(8):839-843.
  • 8Petsatodis G, Antonarakos P, Chalidis B, et al. Surgically treated acetabular fractures via a single posterior approach with a follow-up of 2-10 years. Injury. 2007;38(3):334-343.
  • 9Giannoudis PV, Nikolaou VS. Surgical techniques-How do I do it? Open reduction and internal fixation of posterior wall fractures of the acetabulum. Injury. 2008;39(10):1113-1118.
  • 10Giannoudis PV, Tzioupis C, Moed BR. Two-level reconstruction of comminuted posterior-wall fractures of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(4):503-509.

引证文献3

二级引证文献12

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部