论文部分内容阅读
目的 比较股骨头置换(FHR)与股骨近端髓内固定(IMF)治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效.方法 老年股骨转子间骨折患者60例随机分为两组:FHR组30例,采用人工FHR;IMF组30例,采用股骨近端IMF.比较两组临床疗效.结果 与IMF组比较,FHR组术中出血量较多[(382.7±65.5)ml vs.(170.5±30.6) ml](P＜0.01),手术时间较长(P＜0.01),术后Harris髋关节功能评分高(P＜0.01),疗效优良率高(93.3％ vs.73.3％) (P＜0.05),并发症发生率低(3.3％vs.26.7％)(P＜0.05).结论 与IMF比较,FHR治疗老年股骨转子间骨折能有效提高髋关节Harris功能评分,康复快,并发症少.“,”Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of treating femoral intertrochanteric fracture with femoral head replacement (FHR) and proximal femur intramedullary fixation (IMF) in the elderly.Methods Sixty elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture were randomly treated with FHR(group FHR,30 cases) or IMF(group IMF,30 cases).The clinical efficacy was compared between two groups.Results Compared to group IMF,the patients in group FHR had more surgical blood loss [(382.7 ± 65.5) ml vs.(170.5 ± 30.6) ml] (P＜0.01),longer operation time (P＜0.01),better Harris score of hip function(P＜0.01) with a higher the excellent rate(93.3 ％ vs.73.3％)(P＜0.05) and less incidence of postoperative complications(3.3％ vs.26.7％)(P＜0.05).Conclusion Compared to proximal femur IMF,FHR is better in improving Harris score of hip function,quicker clinical recovery and less postoperative complications in the elderly with femoral intertrochanteric fracture.