期刊文献+

LISS和PFNA治疗老年人股骨转子间骨折的对比研究 被引量:2

Comparative Research of LISS and PFNA in the Senior Intertrochanteric Fracture
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的 对比分析反向股骨远端微创内固定系统(1ess invasive stabilization system , LISS) 和股骨近端螺旋刀片抗旋髓内钉( proximal femoral nail antirotation blade , PFNA)治疗老年人股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效. 方法 回顾笔者医院2009年12月~2012年12月收治的48例患者. 根据不同的手术方式分为:LISS组( n=24例)和PFNA组( n=24例) ,通过两组的手术时间、术中出血量、骨折愈合时间、Harris功能评分及相关并发症来评估两者的疗效. 结果 随访10~23个月后,两组的术后并发症、骨折愈合时间及末次随访功能评分差异无统计学意义,LISS组相对PFNA组的手术切口较长、手术时间较长、术中失血量较多. 结论 LISS和PFNA治疗股骨粗隆间骨折均可取得较好的疗效,对于老年人的股骨粗隆间骨折PFNA具有优势. Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of less invasive stabilization system ( LISS) and proximal femoral nail antiro-tation blade ( PFNA) in the senior intertrochanteric fractures .Methods A total of 48 patients of intertrochanteric fractures from Decem-ber 2009 to December 2012 were retrospectively analyzed .The patients were divided into two groups according to the different methods of operation:LISS group (n=24) and PFNA group (n=24).Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, fracture healing time, Harris func-tion scores and incidence of complications after operation were compared , in order to evaluating the effect of two methods .The analysis of viariace,LSD-T test and χ2 test were used for data analysis .Results The range of followed -up was 10-23 months, There was not sta-tistically significant between two groups , according to incidence of complications after operation , fracture healing time and Harris function scores , but LISS group got longer incision , longer surgery time and more intraoperative blood loss .Conclusion LISS and PFNA are both effective methods to treat senile intertrochanteric fractures , compared with LCP , PFNA is an ideal method of senile intertrochanteric frac-tures.
出处 《医学研究杂志》 2015年第10期51-53,共3页 Journal of Medical Research
基金 国家自然科学基金资助项目(81160218)
关键词 股骨远端微创内固定系统 股骨近端螺旋刀片抗旋髓内钉 股骨转子间骨折 Less invasive stabilization system Proximal femoral nail antirotation blade Intertrochanteric fracture
  • 相关文献

参考文献8

  • 1陈伟,陈君祥.股骨转子间骨折内固定方式的选择[J].健康之路,2013,12(11):145—146.
  • 2Ning Han,Sun GX, Li ZC,et al. Comparison of proximal femoral nail antirotation blade and reverse less invasive stabilization system - distal femur systems in the treatment of proximal femoral fractures[J]. Ortho- paedic Surgery, 2011, 3 (1) : 7 - 13.
  • 3缪海雄,王斌,刘伟乐,孙春汉.反向LISS-DF与PFNA治疗股骨转子间骨折疗效分析[J].亚太传统医药,2013,9(5):136-138. 被引量:6
  • 4Fang Z, Zhi S, Zhang H, et al. Less invasive stabilization system (LISS) versus proximal femoral nail anti -rotation (PFNA) in treating proximal femoral fractures : a prospective randomized study [ J ]. Journal of orthopaedic trauma, 2012, 26(3) : 155 - 162.
  • 5李杰,黄健华,霍维玲,等.反向Liss与PFNA治疗股骨粗隆间粉碎性骨折的疗效分析[J].医学信息,2013,28:115—117.
  • 6苟琦,杨忠义.PFNA及倒置LISS钢板治疗股骨近端骨折效果比较[J].中国卫生产业,2014,11(9):1-2. 被引量:5
  • 7Tao R, Lu Y, Xu H,et al. Internal fixation of intertrochanteric hip frac- tures: a clinical comparison of two implant designs[ J]. The Scientific World Journal, 2013, 12(11): 825-834.
  • 8Simmermacher RK, Ljungqvist J, Bail H, et al. The new proximal femoral nail antitotation (PFNA) in daily practice: results of a multi- centre clinical study[J]. Injury, 2008, 39(8): 932 -939.

二级参考文献9

共引文献9

同被引文献18

引证文献2

二级引证文献10

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