Advance Search
WEI Shuyi, LI Tongxiang. Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus internal fixation with locking plate in the treatment of elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2019, 23(7): 87-90. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.201907023
Citation: WEI Shuyi, LI Tongxiang. Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus internal fixation with locking plate in the treatment of elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2019, 23(7): 87-90. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.201907023
shu

Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus internal fixation with locking plate in the treatment of elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture

  • The Second Department of Orthopedics, Yibin First People′s Hospital, Yibin, Sichuan, 644000

More Information
  • Received Date: December 08, 2018
  • Accepted Date: February 06, 2019
  • Available Online: September 09, 2020
  • Published Date: April 14, 2019
    Graphical Abstract
    • Abstract
  •   Objective  To compare the efficacy of proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) and internal fixation with locking plate in the treatment of elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture.
      Methods  Totally 90 elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in the PFNA group received PFNA, and patients in locking plate group were treated with internal fixation of locking plate. Perioperative indicators, complications, the Harris score and long-term prognosis were compared between the two groups.
      Results  The operation time, length of incision, intra-operative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, time to walking and fracture healing time in the PFNA group were significantly better than those in the locking plate group (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). The total score of Harris, physical function, physical pain and overall health score at final follow up in the PFNA group were significantly higher than those in locking plate group (P < 0.01). The total incidence rate of complications in the PFNA group was significantly lower than that in the locking plate group (P < 0.05).
      Conclusion  PFNA has less trauma, faster recovery speed and fewer complications when compared with internal fixation with locking plate.
    • FullText(HTML)
    • References (26)
  • [1]
    周明昊, 吕建军, 谢威, 等. 锁定钢板和PFNA治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的比较[J]. 安徽医药, 2013, 17(1): 78-79. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6469.2013.01.032
    [2]
    谢仲燊, 林秋喜, 黄超. 两种内固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折疗效比较[J]. 实用骨科杂志, 2014, 20(5): 461-463. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SGKZ201405026.htm
    [3]
    Li J, Cheng L, Jing J. The Asia proximal femoral nail antirotation versus the standard proximal femoral antirotation nail for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly Chinese patients[J]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2015, 101(2): 143-146. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.12.011
    [4]
    胡明云. 老年人股骨粗隆间骨折手术治疗进展[J]. 海南医学, 2011, 22(9): 119-122. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-6350.2011.09.054
    [5]
    曹剑, 王永安, 达赖, 等. 老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者不同内固定方法的疗效[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2012, 32(6): 1295-1296. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9202.2012.06.096
    [6]
    胡彩平, 林毅, 李秋萍, 等. SF-36量表与QLQ-C30量表在老年癌症病人生活质量评估中的应用及其相关性研究[J]. 护理研究, 2015, 29(24): 2968-2972. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6493.2015.24.008
    [7]
    高金华, 王明洋, 顾文浩, 等. 经皮撬拨复位PFNA内固定和股骨近端解剖锁定板内固定治疗老年不稳定股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2017, 32(6): 619-620. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GGJS201706019.htm
    [8]
    任国旗, 廖宏伟, 钱永刚. 解剖型锁定钢板与PFNA治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折回顾性分析[J]. 中国实用医刊, 2013, 40(10): 68-70. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-4756.2013.10.032
    [9]
    吴椰明, 赵海燕, 刘海生. 股骨近端锁定钢板与股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折疗效分析[J]. 山西医药杂志, 2016, 45(12): 1432-1433. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SXYY201612028.htm
    [10]
    马健, 杨明贵, 段政, 等. 股骨近端锁定钢板、PFNA和人工髋关节置换术治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2013, 28(8): 762-763. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GGJS201308027.htm
    [11]
    赵杰, 滕磊, 丰荣杰. 股骨近端抗旋髓内钉内固定术治疗老年不稳定股骨粗隆间骨折效果观察[J]. 山东医药, 2016, 56(42): 62-64. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-266X.2016.42.021
    [12]
    Hélin M, Pelissier A, Boyer P, et al. Does the PFNA nail limit impaction in unstable intertrochanteric femoral fracture A 115 case-control series[J]. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 2015, 101(1): 45-49. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877056814003508
    [13]
    张新颖, 秦汉兴. PFNA与LPFP治疗老年不稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的对比分析[J]. 广西医学, 2015, 37(1): 115-116. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GYYX201501046.htm
    [14]
    贾真, 林涨源. PFNA与ALP内固定治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效比较[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2016, 31(6): 581-584. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GGJS201606007.htm
    [15]
    王强, 田锋, 朱瑞罡, 等. DHS、PFNA、LCP治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较[J]. 山东医药, 2011, 51(49): 107. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-266X.2011.49.068
    [16]
    Makki D, Matar H E, Jacob N, et al. Comparison of the reconstruction trochanteric antigrade nail (TAN) with the proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in the management of reverse oblique intertrochanteric hip fractures[J]. Injury, 2015, 46(12): 2389-2393. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.09.038
    [17]
    罗东斌, 张永, 汤永南, 等. 双切口双钢板内固定与单侧锁定钢板内固定治疗复杂胫骨平台骨折的疗效比较[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2016, 36(6): 1413-1415. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9202.2016.06.062
    [18]
    冯硕, 查国春, 郭开今, 等. 肱骨近端三、四部分骨折治疗: 半肩关节置换与锁定钢板对比[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2018, 22(19): 2974-2980. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.0228
    [19]
    李烨, 焦竞, 汤洁, 等. 甲状旁腺激素(1-34)对老年骨质疏松性肱骨近端骨折术后影响的临床研究[J]. 中国骨质疏松杂志, 2018, 24(1): 40-43. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7108.2018.01.010
    [20]
    王昌刚, 韦泽进, 廖正许, 等. 有限切开复位、锁定钢板内固定治疗肱骨中上段、长斜形骨折的临床体会[J]. 广东医学, 2016, 37(z2): 156-158. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-GAYX2016S1070.htm
    [21]
    永峰, 胡南松, 吕伟胜. 股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗老年骨质疏松性股骨粗隆间骨折的效果分析[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2019, 19(2): 262-263. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YWLC201902035.htm
    [22]
    黄伟彦, 彭杰威, 万明, 等. 股骨近端防旋髓内钉、锁定加压钢板、动力髋螺钉、Gamma钉4种内固定方式治疗老年股骨转子间骨折[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2019, 23(12): 1846-1852. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.1122
    [23]
    李鹏飞. 股骨近端防旋髓内钉和解剖锁定钢板治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的临床效果比较[J]. 临床研究, 2019, 27(2): 58-59. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5972.2019.02.014
    [24]
    王瑞林. 动力髋螺钉与股骨近端抗旋髓内钉治疗外侧壁危险型股骨粗隆间骨折的临床对比研究[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2019, 19(2): 282-284. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YWLC201902048.htm
    [25]
    徐亚斌. PFNA内固定术与DHS应用于高龄股骨粗隆间骨折治疗中疗效对比[J]. 中外医疗, 2018, 37(34): 71-73. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HZZZ201834025.htm
    [26]
    唐胜斌. TANG Sheng-bin. 股骨近端防旋髓内钉小切口治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的效果和安全性分析[J]. 实用老年医学, 2019, 33(1): 49-52. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-9198.2019.01.013
    • Related Articles

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(13)

    1. 张少珂. 乳腺X线摄影与磁共振成像对乳腺癌的诊断价值. 影像研究与医学应用. 2024(01): 154-157 .
    2. 马强. MRI增强扫描与钼靶成像在诊断乳腺导管原位癌(DCIS)中的应用价值. 中华养生保健. 2024(06): 180-183 .
    3. 刘传奇，王洁茹，谢一帆，夏合旦·吾甫尔江，冷晓玲，葛妍. 常规超声、超声萤火虫技术与X线钼靶摄影对乳腺导管原位癌的诊断价值. 癌症进展. 2023(04): 380-383 .
    4. 李新建. 钼靶X线与磁共振对乳腺疾病的诊断价值. 影像研究与医学应用. 2023(07): 167-169 .
    5. 张晓华，魏战友. 超声和钼靶X线检查对更年期女性乳腺微小肿块的诊断比较. 影像科学与光化学. 2022(04): 868-872 .
    6. 孙卫平. 高频彩超及X线钼靶检查对乳腺原位癌早期诊断作用分析. 影像研究与医学应用. 2022(15): 134-136 .
    7. 李志湄，刘业培，焦洪斌. 钼靶DR摄影联合DCE-MRI在乳腺肿块良恶性鉴别中的应用价值. 中国医疗设备. 2022(10): 79-82+100 .
    8. 吴丽萍，张南，刘文霞. 乳腺癌磁共振参数与表皮生长因子受体2增殖细胞核抗原相关性. 河北医学. 2022(10): 1684-1689 .
    9. 李旭华，陈玉兰，赖芳. 不同病理特征乳腺导管原位癌患者的微浸润情况与影响因素. 数理医药学杂志. 2022(12): 1788-1791 .
    10. 宋倩，刘景萍，冯华梅，聂维齐，王泱. 乳腺导管内癌的病理特征与钼靶X线摄影及超声造影检查的相关性. 实用临床医药杂志. 2021(13): 28-31 . 本站查看
    11. 孙妮旎，邱霞，王晓青. 体表交叉结合乳腺X线立体导丝定位在切除乳腺钙化灶中的应用. 浙江创伤外科. 2021(05): 867-869 .
    12. 罗珺，李庆福，陈常群，范波，李照星. 全数字化乳腺摄影联合数字乳腺断层摄影对乳腺病变及乳腺钙化的诊断价值. 实用临床医药杂志. 2021(22): 5-9 . 本站查看
    13. 沐玮玮，李海歌. 3.0T磁共振与乳腺钼靶摄影对乳腺癌诊断的临床价值. 影像研究与医学应用. 2020(20): 65-67 .

    Other cited types(0)

Catalog

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML
    Article views (278) PDF downloads (16) Cited by(13)
    Turn off MathJax
    Article Contents
    Abstract
    References

    © 2020 《实用临床医药杂志》编辑部

    Address: 江苏省扬州市江阳中路136号，扬州大学江阳路北校区14号楼201室China Pos: 225009Tel: 0514-87978917、87978989、87978807

    苏公网安备 32100302010246号

    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co., Ltd.   Baidu Analytics

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return