[1]王祥金,魏巍△.复合加压内固定系统与空心钉治疗中青年股骨颈骨折疗效比较[J].中国中医骨伤科杂志,2024,32(05):55-59.[doi:10.20085/j.cnki.issn1005-0205.240511]
　WANG Xiangjin,WEI Wei.Comparison of Combined Pressure Internal Fixation System and Hollow Nail in the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fracture in Young and Middle-Aged Patients[J].Chinese Journal of Traditional Medical Traumatology & Orthopedics,2024,32(05):55-59.[doi:10.20085/j.cnki.issn1005-0205.240511]
点击复制

复合加压内固定系统与空心钉治疗中青年股骨颈骨折疗效比较()
分享到：

《中国中医骨伤科杂志》[ISSN:1005-0205/CN:42-1340/R]

卷:
第32卷
期数:
2024年05期
页码:
55-59
栏目:
临床论著
出版日期:
2024-05-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of Combined Pressure Internal Fixation System and Hollow Nail in the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fracture in Young and Middle-Aged Patients
文章编号:
1005-0205(2024)05-0055-05
作者:
王祥金1; 魏巍1△
1徐州市中心医院(江苏 徐州,221009)
Author(s):
WANG Xiangjin1; WEI Wei1△
1Xuzhou Central Hospital,Xuzhou 221009,Jiangsu China.
关键词:
股骨颈骨折;  中青年;  空心螺钉;  复合加压内固定系统
Keywords:
femoral neck fracture;  young and middle-aged patients;  hollow screw;  compound pressure internal fixation system
分类号:
R683.42
DOI:
10.20085/j.cnki.issn1005-0205.240511
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的:比较复合加压内固定系统(CCS)与空心螺钉治疗中青年股骨颈骨折临床效果。方法:回顾性分析2020年1月至2022年5月治疗的中青年股骨颈骨折患者的临床资料,依据内固定方式不同将患者分为空心螺钉组和复合加压内固定系统组(CCS组)。两组患者的基线资料差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),比较两组患者术中复位方式、Garden指数、手术时间、术中出血量、术中透视次数、住院期间并发症发生情况、部分负重时间、完全负重时间、骨折愈合时间、髋关节Harris评分、骨折不愈合及股骨头坏死发生率。结果:两组患者术中复位方式、Garden指数、手术时间、术中出血量、术中透视次数、住院期间并发症发生情况等数据差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。复合加压内固定系统组患者开始部分负重时间、开始完全负重时间、骨折愈合时间显著短于空心螺钉组患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。复合加压内固定系统组患者术后3个月及末次随访Harris评分显著高于空心螺钉组患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。空心螺钉组与复合加压内固定系统组患者骨折不愈合及股骨头坏死总发生率分别为21.2%和20.0%,差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.013,P=0.588)。结论:复合加压内固定系统与空心螺钉均可作为中青年股骨颈骨折的有效内固定方式,相比于空心螺钉,复合加压内固定系统可缩短骨折愈合时间及开始负重时间,更有利于髋关节功能恢复。
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of combined pressure internal fixation system(CCS)and hollow screw in the treatment of femoral neck fracture in young and middle-aged patients.Methods:Clinical data of young and middle-aged patients with femoral neck fracture treated from January 2020 to May 2022 were retrospectively analyzed,and the patients were divided into hollow screw group and CCS group according to different internal fixation methods.There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups.Intraoperative reduction mode,Garden index,operation time,intraoperative blood loss,intraoperative fluoroscopy times,incidence of complications during hospitalization,partial weight bearing time,complete weight bearing time,fracture healing time,Harris score of hip joint,fracture nonunion and incidence of femoral head necrosis were compared between the two groups.Results:There were no statistically significant differences in intraoperative reduction mode,Garden index,operation time,intraoperative blood loss,intraoperative fluoroscopy times,and complications during hospitalization between the two groups(P>0.05).The partial weight bearing time,complete weight bearing time and fracture healing time in CCS group were significantly shorter than those in hollow screw group,and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).The Harris score of CCS group was significantly higher than that of hollow-screw group at 3 months and the last follow-up,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).The total incidence of fracture nonunion and femoral head necrosis was 21.2% and 20.0% in the hollow screw group and CCS group,respectively,with no significant difference(χ2=0.013,P=0.588).Conclusion:Both CCS and hollow screw can be used as effective internal fixation methods for middle-aged and young femoral neck fractures.Compared with hollow screw,CCS can shorten the fracture healing time and weight-bearing time,and is more conducive to the functional recovery of hip joint.

参考文献/References:

[1] 孙辉,范致远,靳颖哲,等.加压支撑螺钉与部分螺纹空心螺钉固定青壮年股骨颈骨折术后并发症的前瞻性队列研究[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2021,23(6):470-476.
[2] PEI F,ZHAO R,LI F,et al.Osteonecrosis of femoral head in young patients with femoral neck fracture:a retrospective study of 250 patients followed for average of 7.5 years[J].J Orthop Surg Res,2020,15(1):238.
[3] MA H H,CHOU T A,TSAI S W,et al.Outcomes of internal fixation versus hemiarthroplasty for elderly patients with an undisplaced femoral neck fracture:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J].J Orthop Surg Res,2019,14(1):320.
[4] 盛晓磊,刘苏,王进,等.3D打印导板辅助新型股骨颈内固定系统置钉治疗中青年股骨颈骨折[J].中国组织工程研究,2022,26(33):5290-5296.
[5] 汪天豪,李荣群,周军,等.经皮加压钢板治疗中青年股骨颈骨折疗效分析[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2022,36(6):708-713.
[6] 杨家赵,周雪锋,朱万博,等.股骨颈动力交叉钉系统与空心螺钉固定治疗青壮年股骨颈骨折的近期疗效比较[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2021,23(9):761-768.
[7] VAZQUEZ O,GAMULIN A,HANNOUCHE D,et al.Osteosynthesis of non-displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly population using the femoral neck system(FNS):short-term clinical and radiological outcomes[J].J Orthop Surg Res,2021,16(1):477.
[8] 舒杉,庄乐彬,王钢,等.成年人股骨颈骨折分型的研究进展[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2022,24(3):272-276.
[9] 姜达君,贾伟涛,张长青.青壮年股骨颈骨折复位技巧和内固定选择[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2018,20(7):588-593.
[10] 丁舒晨,虞荣斌,葛云林,等.Gotfried阳性支撑复位结合空心螺钉内固定治疗中青年股骨颈骨折的近期疗效[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2016,18(8):655-661.
[11] 熊巍,易敏,龙成,等.股骨颈动力交叉钉系统与倒三角形空心螺钉固定治疗成人股骨颈骨折的疗效比较[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2021,23(9):748-753.
[12] 李梁,梁学振,滕加文.股骨内侧钢板联合空心钉内固定治疗中青年不稳定型股骨颈骨折效果观察[J].山东医药,2017,57(34):80-82.
[13] 位锋,周业金,姚涛,等.空心钉联合支撑钢板治疗中青年Pauwels Ⅲ型股骨颈骨折[J].中国组织工程研究,2021,25(18):2869-2874.
[14] 苏郁晖,王博文,陈瑞松,等.空心螺钉加内侧支撑钢板结合同种异体骨植骨治疗伴后内侧粉碎的不稳定性股骨颈骨折[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2021,35(11):1434-1439.
[15] 艾克白尔·吐逊,阿吉木·克热木,谢增如,等.两种内固定方式固定青壮年不稳定型股骨颈骨折生物力学特性的有限元分析[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2020,22(9):793-798.
[16] STOFFEL K,ZDERIC I,GRAS F,et al.Biomechanical evaluation of the femoral neck system in unstable pauwels Ⅲ femoral neck fractures:a comparison with the dynamic hip screw and cannulated screws[J].J Orthop Trauma,2017,31(3):131-137.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
△通信作者 E-mail:2625010885@qq.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2024-05-15