两种内固定方法治疗股骨干骨折的疗效比较

Comparison of clinical outcome of two different internal fixation methods in femoral shaft fracture

目的比较两种内固定方法治疗股骨干骨折的疗效。方法对75例股骨干骨折患者行内固定治疗,37例采用锁定接骨板（LCP）内固定,38例采用扩髓髓内针（RIN）内固定。比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、切口长度、功能评价情况。结果与LCP组相比,RIN组手术时间长、切口长度短,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.01）;术中出血量两组比较差异无统计学意义（P=0.176）。75例均获得随访,RIN组随访时间8-15（12.5±2.5）个月,LCP组随访时间为9-14（11.5±1.5）个月。根据Flynn功能评价表评定疗效,两组优良率比较差异无统计学意义（P=0.83）。结论 RIN与LCP两种内固定方法治疗股骨干骨折均疗效显著,而RIN手术方式具有切口小、组织损伤小的优点,可以作为股骨干骨折的首选治疗方法。

Objective To explore the clinical outcome of two different internal fixation methods in femoral shaft fracture. Methods A retrospective study of 75 patients with femoral shaft fracture who had been treated by reamed intramedullary nail（ RIN,38 cases） or locking compression plate（ LCP,37 cases） were carried out. Comparisons were made among two groups in operation time,volume of intraoperative bleeding,length of wounds,functional recovery.Results The difference in operation time,length of wounds between RIN and LCP was significant（ P〈0. 01）. The volume of intraoperative bleeding was not significant（ P = 0. 176）. The follow-up time in the RIN group was 8 - 15（ 12. 5 ± 2. 5） months,and in the LCP group was 9 - 14（ 11. 5 ± 1. 5） months. The excellent-good rate difference according to Flynn function evaluation table between RIN and LCP group was not significant（ P = 0. 83）. Conclusions Both RIN and LCP can achieve well therapeutic effect,and RIN has the advantages of minimally invasive incision and less injury,it can be the preferred method of treatment for femoral shaft fracture.