股骨近端防旋髓内钉微创治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效观察

[目的]探讨股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)微创治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的近期临床疗效。[方法]分析92例老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者的临床资料,根据不同手术方法分为动力髋螺钉组(DHS组)、股骨近端防旋髓内钉组(PFNA组),分别行动力髋螺钉固定术和股骨近端防旋髓内钉固定术,比较两种手术方法的近期临床疗效及术后并发症的发生情况。同时以成人尸体标本为测试对象,对两种手术后的尸体标本进行生物力学测试并作比较。[结果]92例均获得9～24个月的随访,平均15个月。PFNA组术后并发症发生率比DHS组低,有统计学意义(P<0.05)。PFNA组手术时间、出血量、愈合时间比DHS组低,有统计学意义(P<0.05)。DHS组和PFNA组优良率分别为84.1%、85.5%,组间疗效差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。[结论]闭合复位小切口股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)微创治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折近期疗效与DHS相当,但术后并发症发生率明显低于DHS。     

治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折三种内固定方法的评价

[目的]评价治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折三种术式的疗效.[方法]174例老年股骨粗隆间骨折随机分为三组,分别采用DHS、PFNA、动力髋锁定系统(DHLS)内固定治疗.[结果](1)手术时间和术中出血量:PFNA组与DHS组及DHLS组与DHS组比较均具有统计学意义(P＜0.05),PFNA组和DHLS组比较无统计学差异(P＞0.05);PFNA组与DHLS组用时和术中出血量均较DHS组少;(2)下地时间和完全负重时间:PVNA组与DHS组、DHLS组与PFNA组比较均具有统计学意义(P＜0.05),DHS组和DHLS组比较无统计学差异(P＞0.05);PFNA组早于DHS组和DHLS组;(3)骨折愈合时间:PFNA组与DHS组及DHLS组与DHS组比较差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05),PFNA组和DHLS组比较无统计学差异(P＞0.05).对于稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的DHS组、PFNA组和DHLS组的优良率无显著差异,对于不稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的PFNA组和DHLS组的优良率优于DHS组.[结论]对于老年股骨粗隆间骨折的治疗DHLS比DHS更为适合,但与PFNA对比各有所长.     

InterTAN、PFNA、DHS治疗不稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的比较

[目的]对比分析InterTAN髓内钉、股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)、动力髋螺钉(DHS)内固定治疗不稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效。[方法]回顾性分析诊治的120例不稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折患者,InterTAN组40例,PFNA组40例,DHS组40例。比较三组围手术期、随访和影像资料。[结果]手术时间、术中失血量、切口长度和住院时间由小到大依次为PFNAPFNA>DHS,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后影像显示骨折复位质量三组间差异无统计学意义(Z=1.574,P=0.455)。至末次随访时,InterTAN组和PFNA组患者骨折均愈合,而DHS组中,4例骨不愈合。随访过程中,InterTAN组发生1例螺钉退出;PFNA组发生4例螺旋刀片切割或退出、2例髋内翻;DHS组发生6例螺钉退出、3例钢板断裂、4例髋内翻。DHS组晚期并发症率显著高于InterTAN和PFNA组(P<0.05)。[结论] InterTAN与PFNA内固定治疗不稳定股骨粗隆间骨折疗效显著优于DHS内固定,而InterTAN的优势更加显著。     

防旋股骨近端髓内钉与动力髋螺钉治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折疗效比较

目的比较防旋股骨近端髓内钉(proximal femoral nail antirotation,PFNA)与动力髋螺钉(dynamic hipscrew,DHS)固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效。方法 2007年5月-2010年5月,收治63例老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者。根据内固定方法不同将患者分为两组,其中31例采用PFNA内固定(PFNA组),32例采用DHS内固定(DHS组)。两组患者性别、年龄、致伤原因、病程及骨折类型等一般资料比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性。结果术后两组切口均Ⅰ期愈合。PFNA组切口长度、手术时间及术中出血量均显著少于DHS组(P<0.05)。患者术后均获随访,PFNA组平均随访时间13.6个月,DHS组平均13.8个月。两组骨折均愈合,其中PFNA组骨折愈合时间为(11.80±1.32)周,早于DHS组的(12.21±1.26)周,但差异无统计学意义(t=1.23,P=0.29)。PFNA组并发症发生率为0,DHS组为12.5%(4/32),但差异无统计学意义(P=0.06)。术后1年PFNA组Harris髋关节评分为(86.55±10.32)分,优于DHS组的(80.36±11.18)分(t=2.28,P=0.03)。结论 PFNA及DHS治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折各有优势,对于不稳定型骨折宜选用PFNA治疗。     

比较股骨近端防旋髓内钉与动力髋螺钉内固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的效果

目的比较股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)及动力髋螺钉(DHS)内固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的效果。方法回顾性分析2017-03—2019-01间伊川县人民医院收治的62例老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者的临床资料,根据手术方法不同分为PFNA组(33例)和DHS组(29例)2组。比较2组的手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率、骨折愈合时间及髋关节功能(Harris)评分。结果 PFNA组手术时间、骨折愈合时间、末次随访Harris评分等各项指标均优于DHS组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论与DHS比较,PNFA内固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者微创性好、骨折愈合时间短,髋关节功能恢复效果可靠。     

两种不同内固定在老年股骨粗隆间骨折中的应用比较

目的 探讨动力髋螺钉(DHS)与防旋股骨近端髓内钉(PFNA)在老年股骨粗隆间骨折中的治疗选择和临床疗效.方法 53例老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者,31例行DHS固定,22例行PFNA固定.比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量和术后骨折愈合时间与功能恢复情况.结果 PFNA治疗组平均手术时间、术中失血量和术后引流量较DHS治疗组明显减少.两组骨折愈合时间和髋关节功能比较差异无统计学意义.结论 PFNA是治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的理想内固定选择.     

PFNA与DHS内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的效果比较

[目的]比较股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)与动力髋螺钉(DHS)内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的效果。[方法]随机数字法将70例股骨粗隆间骨折患者分为2组,每组35例。PFNA组给予PFNA治疗,DHS组给予DHS治疗。观察两组围术期指标(手术时间、术中出血量、下床负重时间、住院时间、骨折愈合时间)、术后并发症(股骨头坏死、骨折延迟愈合、内固定切出、钢板断裂)、髋关节Harris评分及临床疗效。[结果]PFNA组手术时间、术中出血量、下床负重时间、住院时间及骨折愈合时间明显低于DHS组(P<0.05)。PFNA组术后并发症率为2.82%,低于DHS组的11.42%,但差异无统计学意义(P<0.05)。末次随访两组Harris评分各指标显著升高(P<0.05),且PFNA组Harris评分各指标显著高于DHS组(P<0.05)。末次随访PFNA组总优良率为91.43%,显著高于DHS组的71.43%(P<0.05)。[结论]PFNA和DHS均可用于股骨粗隆间骨折的临床治疗,其中PFNA具有手术创伤小、并发症低、预后恢复好的优点。     

防旋型股骨近端髓内钉内固定治疗高龄股骨粗隆间骨折的效果

目的探讨防旋型股骨近端髓内钉(PFNA)内固定治疗高龄股骨粗隆间骨折的效果。方法选取2014-02—2017-02间漯河市郾城区人民医院收治的98例高龄股骨粗隆间骨折患者,依据不同手术方式分为2组,各49例。对照组行动力髋螺钉内固定(DHS)术,观察组行PFNA内固定术。比较2组的疗效。结果观察组术中出血量、手术时间及术后并发症发生率、骨折愈合时间及髋关节功能Harris评分均显著优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论与DHS术比较,PFNA术治疗高龄股骨粗隆间骨折,可促进髋关节功能恢复,缩短骨折愈合时间,降低并发症发生率。     

闭合复位股骨近端抗旋髓内钉内固定术治疗股骨粗隆间骨折41例临床分析

目的探讨闭合复位股骨近端抗旋髓内钉内固定术(PFNA)治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的效果。方法根据不同手术方案将82例股骨粗隆间骨折患者分为2组,各41例。对照组采取动力髋螺钉(DSH)治疗,观察组采取闭合复位PFNA内固定术。结果观察组切口长度、手术时间、术中失血量及术后卧床时间、开始负重时间、骨折愈合时间和并发症发生率均少于或短于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论闭合复位PFNA内固定术治疗股骨粗隆间骨折,创伤小,并发症较少,有利于促进患者康复。     

两种不同内固定治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的比较研究

[目的] 比较髋动力螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)和股骨近端抗旋转髓内钉(proximal femoral nail antirotation,PFNA)治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效.[方法] 对2001年12月～2008年1月长海医院治疗的483例股骨粗隆间骨折患者进行回顾性研究,其中109例用PFNA治疗,374例用DHS治疗.记录每例患者的手术时间、术中出血量、下地行走时间、骨折愈合时间及髋关节功能评分等相关数据.[结果] 术后平均随访6～38个月,平均15.3个月.PFNA组、DHS组在手术时间、术中出血量、下地行走时间有显著差异,骨折愈合时间无显著差异,对于稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的PFNA组、DHS组的优良率无显著差异,对于不稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的PFNA组的优良率优于DHS组.[结论] 两者有各自的优点和适应证,都是治疗稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的好方法,PFNA对于不稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的治疗更有优势.     

股骨头毁损三联征:股骨头骨折-脱位合并股骨颈骨折

股骨头合并同侧股骨颈骨折是一种严重而复杂的创伤,保髋手术大多会失败。其治疗的难点及预后的关键在股骨颈骨折上。鉴于股骨颈骨折的发生与股骨头骨折-脱位之间存在明显的、前后关联的贯序特点,笔者认为以股骨头毁损三联征（disastrous triad of femoral head,DTFH）来概括这种类型的损伤,更能反映其损伤机制和预后特点。结合临床观察和文献资料,DTFH可分为3个类型：Ⅰ型,普通型DTFH,股骨颈骨折的发生紧随于股骨头骨折-脱位之后,是同一暴力造成的损伤;Ⅱ型,医源型DTFH,是在股骨头骨折-脱位的诊疗过程中发生了医源性股骨颈骨折;Ⅲ型,应力型DTFH,发生于股骨头骨折-脱位的治疗之后,在股骨头骨折面的远侧缘发生应力性股骨颈骨折。本文对各型DTFH的临床特点进行了初步的讨论。     

Distal femoral allograft for massive proximal femoral deficiency

Background?Although indomethacin is effective in preventing heterotopic ossification (HO) after primary total hip arthroplasty, side effects are frequently observed. In the last decade a new class of drugs—the COX-2 selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs—has been developed. To investigate the effect of these COX-2 selective NSAIDs on heterotopic ossification (HO) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), we conducted a randomized controlled trial using either indomethacin or rofecoxib for 7 days.

Methods?186 patients received either indomethacin 3 times daily, or rofecoxib twice, and 1 placebo, daily for 7 days. HO was graded according to the 1-year postoperative radiographs according to the Brooker classification.

Results?12 of the 186 patients included discontinued their medication before the end of the trial due to side effects. The remaining 174 patients were included in the analysis. In the indomethacin group (n = 89), 77 patients (87%) showed no HO, 9 showed HO of grade 1 and 3 showed HO of grade 2 according to the Brooker classification. In the rofecoxib group (n = 85) 73 patients (86%) showed no ossification, 9 showed grade 1, and 3 showed grade 2.

Interpretation?The prophylactic effect of rofecoxib for 7 days in preventing heteropic ossification after primary total hip arthroplasty is comparable to the effect of indomethacin given for 7 days. These results indicate that the development of HO follows a COX-2 pathway.     

Simultaneous proximal femoral rotational and distal femoral varus osteotomies for femoral retroversion and genu valgum

Whereas excess femoral anteversion and its related symptoms have been described many times, excess femoral retroversion is less well documented. We report the case of a 30-year-old woman who had a history of chronic bilateral hip and knee pain and evidence of excess femoral retroversion, genu valgum, early-onset lateral and patellofemoral compartment osteoarthritis of both knees, and hip arthritis. She experienced symptomatic relief after undergoing staged bilateral simultaneous proximal femoral rotational and distal femoral lateral opening wedge osteotomies. Although this combination of alignment problems is not an infrequent clinical occurrence, we have found no literature on this condition or treatment. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.     

Extensively porous-coated femoral revision for severe femoral bone loss

Of 275 femoral revisions done at our institution from 1982 to 1986, we identified 34 patients (35 hips) who represented the senior author's (C.A.E., Sr.) most difficult revision cases as a result of extensive femoral bone loss at least 10 cm below the lesser trochanter. The patients were revised with fully porous-coated femoral components ≥190 mm. We evaluated 25 of the patients (26 hips) who had a minimum 10-year follow-up (mean, 13.3 years). Survivorship was 89% at 10 years with femoral revision as the endpoint (Kaplan-Meier). The femoral aseptic loosening rate was 15% (4 of 26). Three stems were loose but did not warrant reoperation. One stem was revised for aseptic loosening, 1 was revised for septic loosening, and 1 was revised for a fractured femoral component. Bypassing weak or absent femoral bone with an extensively porous-coated stem is an effective reconstructive technique for patients with extensive femoral bone loss.