|
| 股骨颈动力抗旋交叉钉系统联合空心钉治疗股骨颈骨折的临床疗效 |
| Clinical efficacy of femoral neck system combined with cannulated screw in treatment of femoral neck fracture |
| 投稿时间：2024-06-01 |
| DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1000-0399.2025.01.002 |
| 中文关键词: 股骨颈骨折 股骨颈动力抗旋交叉钉系统 空心螺钉 内固定 |
| 英文关键词: Femoral neck fracture Femoral neck system Cannulated screw Internal fixation |
| 基金项目:2022 年度医学人工智能联合基金青年项目（编号：MAI2022Q014） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 259 |
| 全文下载次数: 89 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 比较股骨颈动力抗旋交叉钉系统联合空心钉（FNS&CS）和单纯使用股骨颈动力抗旋交叉钉系统（FNS）治疗股骨颈骨折的临床效果。方法 回顾性分析2021年1月至2023年1月在中国科学技术大学附属第一医院骨科行手术治疗的94例股骨颈骨折患者的临床资料，按照术式不同分为FNS组49例（头下型：26例；经颈型：23例）和FNS&CS组45例（头下型：24例；经颈型：21例）。比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量、术中透视次数、住院时间和骨折愈合时间差异，术后随访，比较两组患者股骨颈短缩情况，并通过Harris评分评价髋关节功能。结果 两组患者术后均获随访，随访时间12～18个月，两组随访时间比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；FNS组手术时间、术中出血量和透视次数优于FNS&CS组（P＜0.05），但两组的住院时间和骨折愈合时间差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。除术后1天两组头下型患者Harris评分、股骨颈短缩情况比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）外，其余时间点FNS&CS组Harris评分、股骨颈短缩情况优于FNS组（P＜0.05）；术后各时间点两组经颈型患者Harris评分、股骨颈短缩情况比较，差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 股骨颈骨折患者采用FNS固定术或FNS&CS固定术治疗均能取得较好的临床效果，但头下型股骨颈骨折采用FNS&CS更具优势。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare the clinical effects of the Femoral Neck System combined with Cannulated Screws (FNS&CS) and the Femoral Neck System (FNS) alone in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. Methods A retrospective analysis was carried out on the clinical data of 94 patients with femoral neck fractures who underwent surgical treatment in the Department of Orthopedics of the First Affili ated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China from January 2021 to January 2023. According to different internal fixation methods, these patients were divided into the FNS group (with 49 cases, including 26 cases of subcapital fractures and 23 cases of transcervical fractures) and the FNS&CS group (with 45 cases, including 24 cases of subcapital fractures and 21 cases of transcervical fractures). The differ ences in operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, the number of intraoperative irradiation, inpatient span and fracture healing time be tween the two groups were compared. Postoperative follow-up was carried out to compare the femoral neck shortening in the two groups, and the hip joint function was evaluated by the Harris score. Results All patients in both groups were followed up, and the follow-up period ranged from 12 to 18 months. No statistically significant difference was found in the follow-up time between the two groups (P>0.05). The op eration time, intraoperative bleeding volume and the number of intraoperative irradiation in the FNS group were superior to those in the FNS&CS group (P<0.05), while there were no significant differences in inpatient span and fracture healing time between the two groups (P> 0.05). Except that there was no statistically significant difference in the Harris score and femoral neck shortening between the two groups of subcapital fractures on one day after surgery (P>0.05), the Harris score and femoral neck shortening in the FNS&CS group were better than those in the FNS group at other time points (P<0.05). No statistically significant differences were detected in the Harris score and femoral neck short ening between the two groups of transcervical fractures at each postoperative time point (P>0.05). Conclusion Both FNS fixation and FNS&CS fixation can achieve good clinical results in patients with femoral neck fractures. However, FNS&CS fixation has more advantages in the treatment of subcapital femoral neck fractures. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
