Background: Internal fixation is appropriate for most intertrochanteric fractures. Optimal fixation is based on the stability of fracture. The mainstay of treatment of intertrochanteric fracture is fixation with a scr...Background: Internal fixation is appropriate for most intertrochanteric fractures. Optimal fixation is based on the stability of fracture. The mainstay of treatment of intertrochanteric fracture is fixation with a screw slide plate device or intramedullary device. So it is a matter of debate that which one is the best treatment, dynamic hip screw or proximal femoral nailing. Method: A prospective randomized and comparative study of 2 years duration was conducted on 60 patients admitted in the Department of Orthopedics in our hospital with intertrochanteric femur fracture. They were treated by a dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. Patients were operated under image intensifier control. The parameters studied were functional outcome of Harris hip score, total duration of operation, rate of union, amount of collapse. These values were statistically evaluated and two tailed p-values were calculated and both groups were statistically compared. Result: The average age of our patient is 67.8 years. Among the fracture, 31% were stable, 58% were unstable, 11% were reverse oblique fracture. The average blood loss was 100 and 250 ml in PFN and DHS group, respectively. In PFN there was more no. of radiation exposure intraoperatively. The average operating time for the patients treated with PFN was 45 min as compared to 70 min in patients treated with DHS. The patients treated with PFN started early ambulation as they had better Harris Hip Score in the early period (at 1 and 3 months). In the long term both the implants had almost similar functional outcomes. Conclusion: In our study we have found that the unstable pattern was more common in old aged patients with higher grade of osteoporosis and PFN group has a better outcome in this unstable and osteoporotic fracture. PFN group has less blood loss and less operating time compared to DHS group. In PFN group patients have started early ambulation compared to DHS group.展开更多
Objective:To compare the outcomes of dynamic hip screws(DHS)and intramedullary nailing(IMN)in the treatment of extra-capsular metastatic carcinoma of the proximal femur.Methods:A retrospective case analysis method was...Objective:To compare the outcomes of dynamic hip screws(DHS)and intramedullary nailing(IMN)in the treatment of extra-capsular metastatic carcinoma of the proximal femur.Methods:A retrospective case analysis method was used to examine data of patients with proximal metastatic cancer of the femur who were treated with internal fixation in Department of Orthopaedics,Beijing Friendship Hospital,from January 2007 to December 2018.Blood loss,postoperative pain,functional score,length of stay,and survival rates were compared,and postoperative complications were assessed.Results:Complete follow-up data were available for 33 patients.The mean follow-up period was 12.2±3.6(range:9-32)months and the average age was 72.3±4.7(range:59-83)years old.There were 20 females and 13 males.Twenty-three patients had undergone IMN and 10 DHS,according to bone defects and the patient’s overall condition.The median survival time was 10 months in the IMN group and 11 months in the DHS group.Duration of surgery(t=-7.366,P<0.001)and length of hospital stay(t=-3.509,P<0.001)differed significantly between the two groups.There was one case of breakage of internal fixation in the IMN group.Conclusions:There was no significant difference between DHS and IMN in terms of surgical efficacy.IMN and DHS were different in terms of surgical time and hospital stay.However,due to the limited number of cases in this study,multi-factor analysis has not been performed and needs to be further verified in future analysis.When developing a surgical plan,it is recommended to consider the patient’s condition and the surgeon’s experience.展开更多
目的:比较采用动力髋螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)、Gamma钉和股骨近端髓内钉(proximal femoral nail,PFN)治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的术中情况、术后并发症及疗效。方法:2001年2月-2005年5月,分别采用DHS(DHS组,56例)、Gamma钉(Gamma钉组...目的:比较采用动力髋螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)、Gamma钉和股骨近端髓内钉(proximal femoral nail,PFN)治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的术中情况、术后并发症及疗效。方法:2001年2月-2005年5月,分别采用DHS(DHS组,56例)、Gamma钉(Gamma钉组,20例)和PFN(PFN组,51例)治疗并随访老年股骨转子间骨折患者127例。比较3组患者手术情况、术后并发症及功能恢复情况。结果:各组间手术时间两两比较均有显著差异(P<0．01),DHS组最长,PFN组最短。Gamma钉组和PFN组术中出血量少于DHS组(P<0．01)。DHS组发生术后髋内翻、肢体短缩及并发症总数多于Gamma钉组和PFN组(P<0．01)。DHS组、Gamma钉组和PFN组优良率分别为82．14％、85．00％和90．20％,组间疗效差异不显著(P>0．05)。结论:应用DHS、Gamma钉和PFN治疗老年股骨转子间骨折,在疗效方面无明显差异。Gamma钉和PFN可缩短手术时间、减少术中出血量及术后并发症。展开更多
目的探讨植骨在动力髋螺钉（dynamic hip screw，DHS）内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折中的临床作用。方法2004-2007年我院收治60例Evans分型Ⅰ～Ⅳ型股骨粗隆间骨折病例，采用动力髋螺钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折。手术分两组，术中不植骨组30例，...目的探讨植骨在动力髋螺钉（dynamic hip screw，DHS）内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折中的临床作用。方法2004-2007年我院收治60例Evans分型Ⅰ～Ⅳ型股骨粗隆间骨折病例，采用动力髋螺钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折。手术分两组，术中不植骨组30例，采用常规实心三联扩孔器扩孔DHS内固定；术中植骨组30例，采用我院自行研制的DHS空心扩孔器扩孔，取骨、植骨，DHS内固定，术后进行随访比较。结果采用黄公怡 髋关节功能评定标准进行评价，不植骨组30例，优14例，良9例，可4例，差3例，髋内翻7例，术后螺钉切割拔出2例，钢板断裂1例，骨不连2例，优良率76．7％。植骨组30例，优18例，良9例，可2例，差1例，髋内翻3例，术后髋螺钉切割拔出1例，无钢板、螺钉断裂，无骨不连，优良率90.0％。结论DHS内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折时，预防性植骨可加速骨折愈合，迅速重建内侧支持结构，减少髋内翻及相关并发症。展开更多
目的:综合分析动力髋螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)在不同类型转子间骨折中的疗效,着重探讨其在反转子间骨折中的应用价值。方法:根据AO分类,将转子间骨折分潍A1、A2、A33型,每型又分为3个亚型。对DHS治疗的102例股骨转子间骨折的总体疗...目的:综合分析动力髋螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)在不同类型转子间骨折中的疗效,着重探讨其在反转子间骨折中的应用价值。方法:根据AO分类,将转子间骨折分潍A1、A2、A33型,每型又分为3个亚型。对DHS治疗的102例股骨转子间骨折的总体疗效和各不同类型转子间骨折的疗效进行对比分析。结果:DHS治疗102例转子间骨折总体优良率81%。A1型优良率95%,A2型优良率84%。反转子间骨折优良率48%。反转子间骨折优良率和总体优良率及A1型或A2型优良率间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。反转子间骨折手术失败率与总体手术失败率及A2型手术失败率间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:DHS对大多数标准转子间骨折疗效良好,对反转子间骨折疗效欠佳。展开更多
目的观察DHS内固定联合药物治疗骨质疏松性股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效。方法对46例患者随机采用DHS内固定术手术治疗(对照组)或DHS配合鲑鱼降钙素喷鼻剂加服钙尔奇D片治疗(治疗组),观察比较两组患者在术后4、8、12周末X线表现,6个月后两...目的观察DHS内固定联合药物治疗骨质疏松性股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效。方法对46例患者随机采用DHS内固定术手术治疗(对照组)或DHS配合鲑鱼降钙素喷鼻剂加服钙尔奇D片治疗(治疗组),观察比较两组患者在术后4、8、12周末X线表现,6个月后两组患者治疗前后患侧股骨近端(bone mineral density,BMD)值变化和术后疗效。其中治疗组26例,对照组20例,两组在性别、年龄、骨折类型等一般情况方面都具有可比性。结果治疗组患者的骨痂、骨质生成的时间均较对照组明显缩短,生成数量增加,治疗效果明显。治疗6个月后,治疗组治疗后比治疗前患侧股骨近端BMD有所增加(P<0.05),而对照组无明显差异(P>0.05),且治疗组术后疗效的优良率高于对照组(P<0.05),差异有统计学意义。结论DHS内固定联合药物治疗骨质疏松性股骨粗隆间骨折能有效促进骨痂的生长,加速骨折的愈合,减少了患者的卧床时间,促进了早期功能锻炼和患髋的功能恢复。展开更多
文摘Background: Internal fixation is appropriate for most intertrochanteric fractures. Optimal fixation is based on the stability of fracture. The mainstay of treatment of intertrochanteric fracture is fixation with a screw slide plate device or intramedullary device. So it is a matter of debate that which one is the best treatment, dynamic hip screw or proximal femoral nailing. Method: A prospective randomized and comparative study of 2 years duration was conducted on 60 patients admitted in the Department of Orthopedics in our hospital with intertrochanteric femur fracture. They were treated by a dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail. Patients were operated under image intensifier control. The parameters studied were functional outcome of Harris hip score, total duration of operation, rate of union, amount of collapse. These values were statistically evaluated and two tailed p-values were calculated and both groups were statistically compared. Result: The average age of our patient is 67.8 years. Among the fracture, 31% were stable, 58% were unstable, 11% were reverse oblique fracture. The average blood loss was 100 and 250 ml in PFN and DHS group, respectively. In PFN there was more no. of radiation exposure intraoperatively. The average operating time for the patients treated with PFN was 45 min as compared to 70 min in patients treated with DHS. The patients treated with PFN started early ambulation as they had better Harris Hip Score in the early period (at 1 and 3 months). In the long term both the implants had almost similar functional outcomes. Conclusion: In our study we have found that the unstable pattern was more common in old aged patients with higher grade of osteoporosis and PFN group has a better outcome in this unstable and osteoporotic fracture. PFN group has less blood loss and less operating time compared to DHS group. In PFN group patients have started early ambulation compared to DHS group.
基金Capital’s Funds for Health Improvement and Research(No.2018-1-2072)。
文摘Objective:To compare the outcomes of dynamic hip screws(DHS)and intramedullary nailing(IMN)in the treatment of extra-capsular metastatic carcinoma of the proximal femur.Methods:A retrospective case analysis method was used to examine data of patients with proximal metastatic cancer of the femur who were treated with internal fixation in Department of Orthopaedics,Beijing Friendship Hospital,from January 2007 to December 2018.Blood loss,postoperative pain,functional score,length of stay,and survival rates were compared,and postoperative complications were assessed.Results:Complete follow-up data were available for 33 patients.The mean follow-up period was 12.2±3.6(range:9-32)months and the average age was 72.3±4.7(range:59-83)years old.There were 20 females and 13 males.Twenty-three patients had undergone IMN and 10 DHS,according to bone defects and the patient’s overall condition.The median survival time was 10 months in the IMN group and 11 months in the DHS group.Duration of surgery(t=-7.366,P<0.001)and length of hospital stay(t=-3.509,P<0.001)differed significantly between the two groups.There was one case of breakage of internal fixation in the IMN group.Conclusions:There was no significant difference between DHS and IMN in terms of surgical efficacy.IMN and DHS were different in terms of surgical time and hospital stay.However,due to the limited number of cases in this study,multi-factor analysis has not been performed and needs to be further verified in future analysis.When developing a surgical plan,it is recommended to consider the patient’s condition and the surgeon’s experience.
文摘目的:比较采用动力髋螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)、Gamma钉和股骨近端髓内钉(proximal femoral nail,PFN)治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的术中情况、术后并发症及疗效。方法:2001年2月-2005年5月,分别采用DHS(DHS组,56例)、Gamma钉(Gamma钉组,20例)和PFN(PFN组,51例)治疗并随访老年股骨转子间骨折患者127例。比较3组患者手术情况、术后并发症及功能恢复情况。结果:各组间手术时间两两比较均有显著差异(P<0．01),DHS组最长,PFN组最短。Gamma钉组和PFN组术中出血量少于DHS组(P<0．01)。DHS组发生术后髋内翻、肢体短缩及并发症总数多于Gamma钉组和PFN组(P<0．01)。DHS组、Gamma钉组和PFN组优良率分别为82．14％、85．00％和90．20％,组间疗效差异不显著(P>0．05)。结论:应用DHS、Gamma钉和PFN治疗老年股骨转子间骨折,在疗效方面无明显差异。Gamma钉和PFN可缩短手术时间、减少术中出血量及术后并发症。
文摘目的探讨植骨在动力髋螺钉（dynamic hip screw，DHS）内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折中的临床作用。方法2004-2007年我院收治60例Evans分型Ⅰ～Ⅳ型股骨粗隆间骨折病例，采用动力髋螺钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折。手术分两组，术中不植骨组30例，采用常规实心三联扩孔器扩孔DHS内固定；术中植骨组30例，采用我院自行研制的DHS空心扩孔器扩孔，取骨、植骨，DHS内固定，术后进行随访比较。结果采用黄公怡 髋关节功能评定标准进行评价，不植骨组30例，优14例，良9例，可4例，差3例，髋内翻7例，术后螺钉切割拔出2例，钢板断裂1例，骨不连2例，优良率76．7％。植骨组30例，优18例，良9例，可2例，差1例，髋内翻3例，术后髋螺钉切割拔出1例，无钢板、螺钉断裂，无骨不连，优良率90.0％。结论DHS内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折时，预防性植骨可加速骨折愈合，迅速重建内侧支持结构，减少髋内翻及相关并发症。
文摘目的:综合分析动力髋螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)在不同类型转子间骨折中的疗效,着重探讨其在反转子间骨折中的应用价值。方法:根据AO分类,将转子间骨折分潍A1、A2、A33型,每型又分为3个亚型。对DHS治疗的102例股骨转子间骨折的总体疗效和各不同类型转子间骨折的疗效进行对比分析。结果:DHS治疗102例转子间骨折总体优良率81%。A1型优良率95%,A2型优良率84%。反转子间骨折优良率48%。反转子间骨折优良率和总体优良率及A1型或A2型优良率间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。反转子间骨折手术失败率与总体手术失败率及A2型手术失败率间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:DHS对大多数标准转子间骨折疗效良好,对反转子间骨折疗效欠佳。
文摘目的观察DHS内固定联合药物治疗骨质疏松性股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效。方法对46例患者随机采用DHS内固定术手术治疗(对照组)或DHS配合鲑鱼降钙素喷鼻剂加服钙尔奇D片治疗(治疗组),观察比较两组患者在术后4、8、12周末X线表现,6个月后两组患者治疗前后患侧股骨近端(bone mineral density,BMD)值变化和术后疗效。其中治疗组26例,对照组20例,两组在性别、年龄、骨折类型等一般情况方面都具有可比性。结果治疗组患者的骨痂、骨质生成的时间均较对照组明显缩短,生成数量增加,治疗效果明显。治疗6个月后,治疗组治疗后比治疗前患侧股骨近端BMD有所增加(P<0.05),而对照组无明显差异(P>0.05),且治疗组术后疗效的优良率高于对照组(P<0.05),差异有统计学意义。结论DHS内固定联合药物治疗骨质疏松性股骨粗隆间骨折能有效促进骨痂的生长,加速骨折的愈合,减少了患者的卧床时间,促进了早期功能锻炼和患髋的功能恢复。
