摘要
目的探讨不同内固定方式治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效。方法分别应用PFN、DHS、PFLP3种内固定方法对60例股骨粗隆间骨折患者进行治疗,分组后每组患者例数为20例,并对3种内固定方式的疗效进行对比。结果 PFLP组显著优于DHS组和PFN组,其差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);DHS组和PFN组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);表明PFLP组均显著优于DHS组和PFN组。PFN组切口长度、手术时间、术中输血量均低于DHS组和PFLP组;PFLP组术后并发症例数多于DHS组和PFN组(P>0.05)。结论术中出血量、骨折愈合时间方面,PFN组显著优于PFLP组和DHS组;而临床疗效方面,PFLP组显著优于DHS组和PFN组。
Objective To compare the efficacies of diffexent internal fixations on femoral intertrochanteric fractures. Methods 60 eases of patients with femoral intertrechanteric fiacture were divided into three groups with 20 patients in each. The three groups were treated by three kinds of fixation, PFN, DHS and PFLP, respectively. And the efficacies of the three kinds of internal fixation were compared. Results The efficacy of PFLP group was significantly better than that of DHS group and PFN group, the difference was statistically significant （P〈0.05）; the difference between DHS group and PFN group had no statistical significance （P〉0.05）; PFLP group were significantly better than that in DHS group and PFN gToup. The incision length and operation time of PFN group were shorter than those of DHS group and PFLP group and intmoperative blood loss was less than that of DHS group and PFLP group. The number of cases of postoperative complications of PFLP group were more than that of DHS group and PFN group （P〉 0.05）. Conclusion In the aspect of intraoperative blood loss and fracture healing time, PFN group was far superior to PFLP group and DHS group with less intraoperative blood loss and fracture healing time, while PFLP group was far superior to DHS group and PFN group in terms of clinical efficacy.
出处
《中外医疗》
2013年第29期11-12,共2页
China & Foreign Medical Treatment
