摘要
目的：探讨股骨近端解剖钢板和动力髋螺钉（Dynamic hip screw，DHS）治疗股骨粗隆问骨折的临床疗效对比。方法：将来自山东中医药大学附属医院骨科病房45例股骨粗隆间骨折手术病人。按内同定方式的不同分为两组：股骨近端解剖钢板内固定组23例，DHS内同定组22例，随访6个月～2年。结果：股骨近端解剖钢板组和DHS组治疗股骨粗隆间骨折在住院时间和髋关节功能恢复情况差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；两组在平均手术时间、术中平均出血量、术中平均输血量差异均具有统计学意义（P〈0．05），说明股骨近端解剖钢板组手术时间短，且术巾出血量，术中输血量少。结论：1股骨近端解剖钢板塑型良好，术中创伤比DHS小。2股骨近端解剖钢板与DHS治疗粗隆间骨折在髋关节功能恢复和髋内翻发生率方面无差异，两种治疗方法均可获得满意疗效，但应严格手术适应症。
Objective To analysis the association between lumbar spine BMD and morphological changes. Methods Forty Five cases in this study were femoral intertrochanteric fracture patients in the Shan Dong University ofTCM Affilitated Hospital orthopaedics impatient. All the cases were divided into two groups according to different treatment. Twenty three patients were treated with proximal femoral anatomic plate, and twenty two patients were treated with DHS. The period of follow-up was between 6 months to 2 years. Result There were no significant difference in the time in hospital and the function of resuming between proximal femoral anatomic plate group and the DHS group （P〉0.05）, and there were significant difference in the time, blood loss and blood transfusion during operation between two groups （P〈0.05）, it shows that the time, blood loss and blood transfusion during operation in the proximal femoral anatomic plate group was less than the DHS group （P〈0.05）. Conclusion 1 Proximal femoral anatomic plate shows the advantage of good molding and less injury. 2 Proximal femoral anatomic plate and DHS can be good methods to the intertrochanteric fracture, but the operation indication should be chosen strictly.
