[1]陈光伟.PFNA治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效及安全性分析[J].中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志,2020,(03):142-147.[doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2020.03.004]
　Chen guangwei..Efficacy and safety of PFNA in the treatment of old intertrochanteric fractures[J].Chin J Geriatr Orthop Rehabil(Electronic Edition),2020,(03):142-147.[doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2020.03.004]
点击复制

PFNA治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效及安全性分析()
分享到：

中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志[ISSN:1674-3911/CN:11-9292/R]

卷:
期数:
2020年03期
页码:
142-147
栏目:
髋部骨折
出版日期:
2020-06-05

文章信息/Info

Title:
Efficacy and safety of PFNA in the treatment of old intertrochanteric fractures
作者:
陈光伟
075000 张家口市第二医院创伤一科
Author(s):
Chen guangwei.
Department of Trauma, Zhangjiakou2st hospital, zhangjiakou 075000, China
关键词:
防旋股骨近端髓内钉;  经皮加压钢板;  股骨粗隆间骨折;  髋关节功能评分
Keywords:
Proximal femoral nail anti-rotation;  Percutaneous compression plate;  Intertrochanteric fracture;  Harris
DOI:
10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2020.03.004
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 探讨防旋股骨近端髓内钉（PFNA）治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效及安全性分析。方法 前瞻性收集2017年1月至2019年1月在张家口市第二医院行X线检查确诊的老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者82例。采用随机数法将其分为对照组和观察组，各41例。对照组采用经皮加压钢板（PCCP）治疗，观察组采用PFNA治疗。比较两组临床疗效、手术情况和术后住院时间，术前、术后1 w、半年及1年的髋关节功能（Harris）评分；统计两组治疗期间的满意率、随访结果及并发症发生率。结果 两组患者随访时间为1年12～18个月，随访率100%。术后1 w观察组优良率为90.24%，对照组为87.80%，两组优良率比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；观察组手术切口为（11.2±3.1）cm，长于对照组的[（6.5±1.7）cm，t=8.598，P＜0.05]，术中出血量为（157±32）ml，多于对照组的[（39±12）ml，t=22.230，P＜0.05]，术后住院时间为（12±4）d，短于对照组的[（16±5）d，t=3.595，P＜0.05]；两组手术时间比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；观察组术后1 w的Harris评分为（42±6）分，高于对照组的[（40±5）分，F=4.056，P＜0.05]；术后半年的Harris评分为（82±5）分，高于对照组的[（78±5）分，F=8.191，P＜0.05]；术后1年两组Harris评分比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；观察组满意率为85.37%，对照组为90.24%，两组满意率比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。观察组术后并发症发生率为7.32%，对照组为19.51%，两组并发症发生率比较，差异具有统计学意义（c2=7.458，P＜0.05）。术后1年，观察组复发率为4.88%，对照组为12.20%，两组复发率比较，差异具有统计学意义（c2=2.145，P＜0.05）。结论 采用PFNA和PCCP治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折均取得较好的临床效果，且采用PFNA治疗的患者术后住院时间明显缩短，髋关节功能恢复较好。
Abstract:
Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) in the treatment of old intertrochanteric fractures. Methods A total of 82 patients with old intertrochanteric fractures confirmed by X-ray examination in our hospital between January 2017 and January 2019 were selected. They were divided into the control group and the observation group by random number method, each groups were 41 cases. The control group was treated with percutaneous compression plating (PCCP), and the observation group was treated with PFNA. The clinical efficacy, surgical status and postoperative hospital stay, preoperative, the score of Harris at postoperative 1 week, 6 months and 1 year postoperative were compared; the satisfaction rate, follow-up results and complications during the treatment period rate were counted. Results The excellent and good rate in the observation group was 90.24%, and the excellent and good rate in the control group was 87.80%, there was no obvious difference in the excellent rate between the two groups (P>0.05). The surgical incision in the observation group was (11.2±3.1) cm, which was longer than [(6.5±1.7) cm, P<0.05] in the control group. The intraoperative blood loss was (157±32) ml, which was more than the [(39±12) ml, P<0.05]. The postoperative hospital stay was (12±4) d, which was shorter than that in the control group [(16±5) d, P<0.05]. There was no significant difference in surgical time between the two groups (P>0.05); the score of Harris in the observation group at 1 week after surgery was (42±6) points, which was higher than the control group’s [(40±5) points, P<0.05]; the score of Harris in the observation group at the first half in the postoperative period was (82±5) points, higher than the control group [(78±5) points, P<0.05]; there was no significant difference in the score of Harris between the two groups at one year after operation (P>0.05); the satisfaction rate in the observation group was 85.37 %, the control group was 90.24% there was no significant difference in the satisfaction rate between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications in the observation group was 7.32%, and that in the control group was 19.51%. There was a statistically significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (P<0.05). One year after surgery, the recurrence rate in the observation group was 4.88% and that in the control group was 12.20%. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion Using PFNA and PCCP treat the old intertrochanteric fractures has achieved good clinical results, and with PFNA treatment, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shortened, and hip function recovery was better.

参考文献/References:

1 付永彬, 阮晓军, 樊宗庆. 股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定治疗外侧壁完整和外侧壁骨折的股骨粗隆间骨折疗效比较 [J]. 安徽医学, 2019, 40(6): 667-669.2 陈宇翔, 唐佩福. 股骨粗隆间骨折内固定手术治疗的研究进展 [J]. 解放军医学院学报, 2017, 38(2): 171-174+178.3 Shin WC, Seo JD, Lee SM, et al. Radiographic outcomes of osteosynthesis using?proximal?femoral nail?antirotation(pfna)system in intertrochanteric femoral fracture:has pfna ii solved all the problems [J]. Hip Pelvis, 2017, 29(2): 104-112.4 Dang KH, Ornell SS, Reyes G, et al. A new risk to the axillary nerve during?percutaneous?proximal humeral?plate?fixation using the synthes PHILOS?aiming?system [J]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg, 2019, 25(19): 1058-2746.5 李赫, 顾海伦, 任德新, 等. APFN与PFNA内固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较 [J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2018, 33(2): 134-137.6 李勇, 刘延雄. 骨质疏松股骨粗隆间骨折的股骨近端防旋髓内钉固定手术的效果与安全性评价 [J]. 临床外科杂志, 2018, 26(10): 789-791.7 王嘉嘉, 徐美涛, 张帅, 等. 经皮加压钢板治疗老年患者股骨逆粗隆间骨折17例临床观察 [J]. 海军医学杂志, 2017, 38(4): 346-349.8 张运杰, 吴乃中, 张永. DHS和PFNA固定在老年股骨粗隆间骨折中应用对术后恢复影响的效果分析 [J]. 贵州医药, 2017, 41(7): 747-749.9 郑世雄, 范超领, 刘合亮, 等. PFNA内固定与人工股骨头置换术治疗老年不稳定股骨粗隆间骨折的比较 [J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2018, 33(5): 542-544.10 张涛, 杨扉扉, 张松, 等. 两种手术方式治疗外侧壁危险型股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较 [J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2017, 25(2): 174-177.11 李炜, 罗斌, 沈鹏. 股骨粗隆间骨折髓内钉固定不同尖顶距水平对疗效的影响 [J]. 中国中医骨伤科杂志, 2018, 26(10): 28-31.12 Xue D, Yu J, Zheng Q, et al. The treatment strategies of?intertrochanteric?fractures?nonunion:an experience of 23 nonunion patients [J]. Injury, 2017, 48(3): 708-714.13 温鑫鑫, 尤涛. 股骨大粗隆外侧壁对股骨粗隆间骨折治疗的意义研究进展 [J]. 中华保健医学杂志, 2019, 21(3): 290-292.14 贾晓雯, 刘蓉. 锁定钢板微创内固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折护理体会 [J]. 山西医药杂志, 2019, 48(14): 1772-1774.15 Luo X, He S, Zeng D, et al. Proximal?femoral nail?antirotation?versus hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of senile intertrochanteric fractures:case report [J]. Int J Surg Case Rep, 2017, 38(1): 37-42.16 安帅, 张明. PFNA与InterTan内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的回顾性分析 [J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2017, 32(2): 193-195.17 李明东, 胡稷杰, 黎早敏, 等. 不同手术方式治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较 [J]. 中国修复重建外科杂志, 2017, 31(6): 653-658.18 王人楷, 章浩, 李迪, 等. 股骨粗隆间骨折临床分型研究进展 [J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2018, 26(20): 1882-1887.19 Sharma A, Mahajan A, John B, et al. A comparison of the clinico-radiological outcomes with?proximal?femoral nail(pfn)and?proximal?femoral nail?antirotation (pfna)in fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures [J]. J Clin Diagn Res, 2017, 11(7): 05-09.20 万家兴, 王凯利, 宋雪, 等. 股骨粗隆间骨折行股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定术后失败的原因分析及手术经验总结 [J]. 四川医学, 2018, 39(4): 449-452.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
河北省重点研发项目（20191835）
更新日期/Last Update: 2020-07-07