PFNA和DHS治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的效果比较

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (15)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (0 KB) HTML (36 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract ObjectiveTo explore the advantages and disadvantages of proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA)and dynamic hip screw (DHS)in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the elderly patients,to determine its clinical significance.Methods150 elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures diagnosed in our department from March 2010 to September 2015 were selected and divided into group A(80 cases)and group B(70 cases)according to the different internal fixation methods.Group A was treated with PFNA,group B was treated with DHS.The general condition, efficacy,the incidence rate of complication and fracture healing time between the two groups were compared.ResultsThe intraoperative blood loss of group A was less than that of group B,and the operative time and fracture healing time in group A was shorter than that in group B,with significant difference (P＜0.05).There was no significant difference in the excellent and good rate between the two groups (P＞0.05).The incidence rate of complication in group A was lower than that in group B,with significant difference (P＜0.05).ConclusionApplication of PFNA internal fixation in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients can shorten the operation time,reduce complications,and facilitate fracture healing.

Key words： Proximal femoral nail antirotation Dynamic hip screw Internal fixation Intertrochanteric fracture of femur

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	LYU Ping
	HUANG Hai-yang
	HUANG Wen-dong

Cite this article:

LYU Ping,HUANG Hai-yang,HUANG Wen-dong. Effect comparison of PFNA and DHS in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients[J]. 中国当代医药, 2017, 24(13): 69-71.

URL:

http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/ OR http://dangdaiyiyao.com/EN/Y2017/V24/I13/69

[1]	张龙，申海龙，张磊.微创股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折临床分析[J].海南医学，2016，27（2）：299-301.
[2]	赖伟鑫.PFNA与解剖锁定钢板治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折疗效观察[J].吉林医学，2016，37（3）：613-614.
[3]	赵金铭，田红军，朱金华，等.PFNA、DHS联合外固定架治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较[J].中国卫生标准管理，2015，17（9）：181-182.
[4]	杨声波，陈文帅，沈伟冰.PFNA与DHS治疗23例老年股骨粗隆间骨折疗效对比分析[J].福建医药杂志，2007，29 （6）：35-37.
[5]	王刚，李树东，吕雪松，等.PFNA解剖钢板与DHS治疗股骨粗隆间骨折合并老年骨质疏松症患者的疗效对比研究[J].河北医学，2016，22（4）：606-609.
[6]	李仁杰.PFNA与DHS治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折伴骨质疏松症的疗效对比[J].西南国防医药，2016，26（8）：901-904.
[7]	陈新宇.PFNA与DHS治疗超高龄股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效分析[J].实用医学杂志，2015，13（12）：1993-1995.
[8]	任鸿，肖伟，王庭刚，等.DHS和PFNA治疗合并帕金森病老年股骨粗隆间骨折的临床研究[J].局解手术学杂志，2016，25（8）：596-599.
[9]	魏东华，江中潮.PFNA与DHS治疗老年不稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的临床对比研究[J].医学综述，2015，21（9）：1704-1706.
[10]	吴椰明，赵海燕.PFNA与DHS内固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较[J].河北医药，2016，38（6）：896-898.
[11]	王智，任平，王杰，等.三种内固定方法治疗老年人骨质疏松性股骨粗隆间骨折的优缺点分析[J].海南医学，2015，23（1）：31-33.
[12]	翁天才，曾文磊，熊昌盛，等.PFNA内固定对老年股骨粗隆间骨折功能恢复的意义[J].中国医药导刊，2015，19（3）：258-259.
[13]	蒋继亮，童梁成，龚永良，等.PFNA和DHS内固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间稳定骨折的疗效分析[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志，2016，31（6）：635-636.
[14]	蒋志余，李成存，王强立.3种内固定方式治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的临床分析[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志，2015，22（4）：32-33.
[15]	潘波，项飞.髓内及髓外两种内固定术法治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效对比[J].医学临床研究，2016，33（10）：2006-2008.