髓外固定系统与髓内固定系统治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较

The efficacy of marrow external fixation system versus that of intramedullary fixation system for intertrochanteric fractures

目的比较分析髓外固定系统与髓内固定系统治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效。方法选取2008年1月至2012年3月我院骨科收治的股骨粗隆间骨折患者52例，将其随机分为DHS组和PFNA组，各26例。比较两组优良率、手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合时间及术后并发症情况。结果PFNA组优良率为92．3％，DHS组优良率为88．5％，两组优良率相比，差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；PFNA组手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合时间及术后并发症均显著优于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论PFNA与DHS两种手术治疗股骨粗隆间骨折均能取得较好的治疗效果。与DHS相比，PFNA系统具有手术时间短、术中出血量少、术后恢复快及术后并发症少等优点，更值得在临床上推广应用。

Objective To compare and analyze the efficacy of marrow external fixation system with that of intramedullary fixation system in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. Methods 52 patients with intertrochanteric fractures who had been treated during the period of January 2008 to March 2012 were randomly divided into DHS group and PFNA group, 26 for each group. The excellent rate, surgical duration, intraoperative bleeding volume, fracture healing time, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results The excellent rate was 92.3% in PFNA group and 88.5% in DHS group, with no significant statistical difference （P〉O.05）. PFNA group was superior to DHS group in surgical duration, intraoperative bleeding volume, fracture healing time, and postoperative complications, with significant statistical differences （P〈O.05）. Conclusions Both PFNA and DHS can obtain a better efficacy in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures. As compared with DHS, PFNA has shorter surgical duartion, less bleeding volume, quicker postoperative recovery, and fewer complications, and it is worth popularizing clinically.