期刊文献+

2010年至2011年京津唐地区多中心成人股骨干骨折的流行病学研究 被引量:15

Epidemiological investigation of femoral shaft fractures in Beijing, Tianjin and Tangshan from 2010 through 2011
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的探讨京津唐(北京、天津、唐山)地区成人股骨干骨折的流行病学特征,比较股骨干骨折的地区差异。方法回顾性分析北京(A组)、天津(B组)及唐山地区(C组)8家医院2010年1月至2011年12月期间所诊治的所有成人股骨干骨折患者资料,统计患者的性别、年龄、骨折AO分型等数据,总结京津唐地区成人股骨干骨折的流行病学特征,对比分析3组的数据。结果共收治1455例成人股骨干骨折患者,占同期成人股骨骨折的17.13%(1455/8495),占同期成人全身骨折的2.72%(1455/53462)。男女比为3.77:1。骨折高发年龄段为16。45岁(64.47%),高发骨折类型为32.A型(49.28%)。A组、B组和C组成人股骨干骨折分别为88、235和1132例。3组骨折高发年龄段均为16—45岁(A组占59.09%,B组占51.49%,C组占67.58%)。C组患者男女比(4.93:1)显著高于A组(2.52:1)和B组(1.64:1),差异均有统计学意义(P〈0.05)。3组高发骨折类型为均32.A型,A组32.A型骨折构成比(71.59%)显著高于B组(52.34%)和C组(46.91%),差异均有统计学意义(P〈0.05)。结论京津唐地区成人股骨干骨折占同期成人股骨骨折的17.13%,占同期成人全身骨折的2.72%。男性患者多于女性,青年患者比例最高,32.A型骨折最常见。京津唐地区成人股骨干骨折患者存在地区差异,唐山地区男女比最高,北京地区32-A型骨折构成比最高。 Objective To investigate the epidemiological features of femoral shaft fractures in Beijing, Tianjin and Tangshan from 2010 through 2011. Methods Cluster random sampling methods were used to choose 8 hospitals from Beijing (group A), Tianjin (group B) and Tangshan (group C). The data of adult frac- tures treated between January 2010 and December 2011 in these hospitals were collected through the PACS system and X-ray films. After adult femoral shaft fractures were selected, they were divided into 3 age groups (young group, middle-aged group, and elderly group). Analytic items included gender, age and AO classification. The epidemiological characteristics of adult femoral shaft fractures were analyzed and compared among the 3 different regional groups. Results A total of 1,455 adult femoral shaft fractures were selected with a male to female ratio of 3.77: 1, accounting for 17. 13% (1,455/8,495) of the adult femoral fractures and 2.72% (1, 455/53, 462) of all the adult fractures. Age distribution showed that the peak age of femoral shaft frac- tures ranged from 16 to 45 years (64.47%). AO type 32-A was the most common, accounting for 49. 28% of all the femoral shaft fractures. There were 88 femoral shaft fractures in group A, 235 in group B, and 1,132 in group C. The peak age of femoral shaft fractures ranged from 16 to 45 years in all the 3 groups (59.09% in group A, 51.49% in group B and 67.58% in group C) . The male to female ratio was 4.93:1 in group C, significantly higher than in group A (2. 52: 1) and group B (1.64: 1) ( P 〈 0. 05) . Type 32-A was the most common in all the 3 groups, but its proportion in group A (71.59%) was significantly higher than in group B (52.34%) and group C (46.91%) ( P 〈 0. 05 ) . Conclusions Adult femoral shaft fractures in Beijing, Tianjin and Tangshan accounted for 17.13% of the adult femoral fractures and 2.72% of all the adult fractures from 2010 through 2011. They were more common in males than in females. They prevailed in young people. The most common fracture type was AO type 32-A. There were regional differences. The male to female ratio was the highest in Tangshan and the proportion of type 32-A was the highest in Beijing.
出处 《中华创伤骨科杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2015年第8期709-713,共5页 Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
基金 河北省重大医学科研课题(zd2013033) 国家自然科学基金(81401789) 河北省卫计委重点科研课题(20130203.20130217)
关键词 股骨骨折 流行病学 成年人 多中心研究 Femoral fractures Epidemiology Adult Multicenter studies
  • 相关文献

参考文献11

  • 1Ameson TJ, Melton LJ 3rd, Lewallen DG, et al. Epidemiology ofdiaphyseal and distal femoral fractures in Rochester, Minnesota, 1965-1984[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1988(234): 188-194.
  • 2Fakhry SM, Rutledge R, Dabners LE, et al. Incidence, manage- ment, and outcome of femoral shaft fracture: a statewide popula- tion-based analysis of 2805 adult patients in a rural state[J]. J Trauma, 1994, 37(2): 255-260.
  • 3Kobbe P, Micansky F, Lichte P, et al. Increased morbidity and mortality after bilateral femoral shaft fractures: myth or reality in the era of damage control?[J]. Injury, 2013, 44(2): 221-225.
  • 4Flynn JM, Garner MR, Jones KJ, et al. The treatment of low-energy femoral shaft fractures: a prospective study comparing the "walking spica" with the traditional spica cast[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2011, 93(23): 2196-2202.
  • 5Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, et al. Fracture and dislocation classi- fication compendium-2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classifi- cation, database and outcomes committee[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2007, 21(10 Suppl): S1-S133.
  • 6Singer BR, McLauehlan GJ, Robinson CM, et al. Epidemiology of fractures in 15, 000 adults: the influence of age and gender[J] . JBone Joint Surg Br, 1998, 80(2): 243-248.
  • 7Zhang ~Z. Clinical epidemiology of orthopedic trauma[M]. New York: Thieme, 2012.
  • 8Salminen ST, Pihlajam~ki HK, Avikainen VJ, et al. Population based epidemiologic and morphologic study of femoral shaft fractures[J] . Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2000(372): 241-249.
  • 9Burge R, Dawson Hughes B, Solomon DH, et al. Incidence and e- conomic burden of osteoporosis related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025[J]. J Bone Miner Res, 2007, 22(3): 465-475.
  • 10Nieves JW, Bilezikian JP, Lane JM, et al. Fragility fractures of the hip and femur, incidence and patient characteristics[J]. Osteoporoslnt, 2010, 21(3): 399-408.

同被引文献118

引证文献15

二级引证文献132

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