论文部分内容阅读
目的：比较股骨近端防旋髓内钉（PFNA）、股骨头置换（FHR）和解剖型锁定钢板（ALP）三种手术方法治疗效果。方法对我院2011年3月～2014年12月收治的113例分别接受PFNA、FHR和ALP的患者进行回顾性分析。其中，PFNA组39例,ALP组37例，FHR组37例。对三组患者的术中情况、术后并发症及Harris髋关节功能等资料进行回顾性研究。结果113例全部获得随访，随访时间8？19个月，平均12.7个月。平均手术时间三组间比较，F值为49.43，差异有统计学意义（PPFNA 组>FHR 组，两两比较有统计学差异（P0.05）。术后1、6个月Harris评分有统计学意义（P＞0.05)，而术后12个月无统计学差异（P＞0.05)。结论 PFNA、FHR和ALP均可获得较满意疗效，其中PFNA组具有创伤小、固定可靠、术后并发症少等优点，可作为临床首选治疗方案。“,”Objective To compare the effects of three surgical methods of proximal femoral nail anti rotation (PFNA), femoral head replacement (FHR) and anatomical locking plate (ALP). Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on 113 patients with PFNA, FHR and ALP admitted to our hospital from March 2011 to December 2014. Among them, PFNA group of 39 cases, ALP group of 37 cases, FHR group of 37 cases. Data of 3 groups of patients in the intraoperative, postoperative complications and Harris hip function were retrospectively studied. Results All 113 cases were followed up, follow-up time from 8 to 19 months, an average of 12.7 months. The average operation time was compared between the three groups, the value of F for 49.43, the difference was statistically significant (P 0.05); postoperative weight-bearing time: ALP group >PFNA group >FHR group, pairwise comparison with statistically significant difference ( P 0.05). After 1 and 6 months, Harris score was statistically significant (P>0.05), and no significant differenc was not statistically significant (P>0.05).Conclusion PFNA, FHR and ALP can obtain satisfactory curative effect, the PFNA group has the advantages of less trauma, reliable fixation, less complications and so on. It can be used as the preferred clinical treatment plan.