[1]张雨,李钧,李志民,等.解剖型髓内钉内固定和股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的比较研究[J].中医正骨,2022,34(03):15-19.
　ZHANG Yu,LI Jun,LI Zhimin,et al.A comparative study of internal fixation with Zimmer natural nail versus proximal femoral nail antirotation for treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the aged[J].The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology,2022,34(03):15-19.
点击复制

解剖型髓内钉内固定和股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的比较研究()
分享到：

《中医正骨》[ISSN:1001-6015/CN:41-1162/R]

卷:
第34卷
期数:
2022年03期
页码:
15-19
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2022-03-20

文章信息/Info

Title:
A comparative study of internal fixation with Zimmer natural nail versus proximal femoral nail antirotation for treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the aged
作者:
张雨; 李钧; 李志民; 黄鹤; 水明斌
(浙江新安国际医院,浙江 嘉兴 314033)
Author(s):
ZHANG Yu; LI Jun; LI Zhimin; HUANG He; SHUI Mingbin
Zhejiang Xin'an International Hospital,Jiaxing 314033,Zhejiang,China
关键词:
髋骨折;  老年人;  骨折固定术; 髓内;  股骨近端防旋髓内钉;  解剖型髓内钉
Keywords:
hip fractures;  aged;  fracture fixation; intramedullary;  proximal femoral nail antirotation;  Zimmer natural nail
摘要:
目的:比较解剖型髓内钉(Zimmer natural nail,ZNN)内固定和股骨近端防旋髓内钉(proximal femoral nail antirotation,PFNA)内固定治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效和安全性。方法:对122例老年股骨转子间骨折患者的病例资料进行回顾性分析,接受ZNN内固定治疗的62例为ZNN组,接受PFNA内固定治疗的60例为PFNA组。比较2组患者手术时间、术中X线透视次数、术中出血量、住院时间、骨折愈合时间、下地行走时间、完全负重时间、并发症发生率,以及术后3个月和术后12个月时的髋部疼痛视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale,VAS)评分和Harris髋关节评分。结果:①一般结果。与PFNA组相比,ZNN组手术时间和住院时间短[(70.11±6.16)min,(81.53±7.57)min,t=5.326,P=0.000;(6.43±1.45)d,(8.25±1.37)d,t=3.326,P=0.000],术中X线透视次数和出血量少[(3.16±0.57)次,(5.75±1.28)次,t=4.834,P=0.000;(180.01±12.64)mL,(202.84±11.23)mL,t=4.574,P=0.000]。②疗效评价结果。2组患者骨折均愈合,ZNN组骨折愈合时间较PFNA组短[(4.27±0.82)周,(6.46±0.98)周,t=6.890,P=0.000],下地行走时间和完全负重时间均较PFNA组早[(16.35±3.16)d,(22.54±3.37)d,t=5.642,P=0.000;(22.46±4.36)周,(29.74±5.32)周,t=6.323,P=0.000]。术后3个月,2组患者髋部疼痛VAS评分和Harris髋关节评分比较,组间差异均无统计学意义[(5.21±2.12)分,(5.22±1.73)分,t=0.251,P=0.523;(52.52±3.43)分,(54.51±2.76)分,t=0.532,P=0.243]; 术后12个月,ZNN组髋部疼痛VAS评分低于PFNA组[(1.22±0.26)分,(3.75±0.68)分,t=5.623,P=0.000],Harris髋关节评分高于PFNA组[(93.51±4.23)分,(81.95±3.99)分,t=8.431,P=0.000]; 与术后3个月相比,术后12个月时2组患者髋部疼痛VAS评分均降低(t=4.523,P=0.000; t=7.654,P=0.000),Harris髋关节评分均提高(t=7.534,P=0.000; t=8.564,P=0.000)。③安全性评价结果。ZNN组并发切口感染1例,应用抗生素后感染控制。PFNA组并发切口感染5例,应用抗生素后感染控制; 并发髋关节骨关节炎2例,经康复训练后,髋关节功能有所改善。ZNN组并发症发生率与PFNA组相比,差异无统计学意义(χ2=3.523,P=0.061)。结论:ZNN内固定治疗老年股骨转子间骨折,比PFNA内固定手术时间和住院时间短,术中X线透视次数和出血量少,骨折愈合快,术后下地行走和完全负重早,更有利于缓解髋部疼痛和恢复髋关节功能,但二者安全性相当。
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of internal fixation with Zimmer natural nail(ZNN)versus proximal femoral nail antirotation(PFNA)for treatment of intertrochanteric fractures(ITFs)in the aged.Methods:The medical records of 122 aged patients with ITFs were analyzed retrospectively.Sixty-two patients were treated with ZNN internal fixation(ZNN group),while the others with PFNA internal fixation(PFNA group).The operative time,intraoperative X-ray exposure,intraoperative blood loss,hospital stays,fracture healing time,bed rest time,complete weight-bearing walk start time and complication incidence rate were compared between the 2 groups,furthermore,the hip pain visual analogue scale(VAS)score and Harris hip score measured at 3 and 12 months after the surgery were compared between the 2 groups.Results:①The operative time and hospital stays were shorter,the intraoperative X-ray exposure was fewer and the intraoperative blood loss was less in ZNN group compared to PFNA group(70.11±6.16 vs 81.53±7.57 minutes,t=5.326,P=0.000; 6.43±1.45 vs 8.25±1.37 days,t=3.326,P=0.000; 3.16±0.57 vs 5.75±1.28 times,t=4.834,P=0.000; 180.01±12.64 vs 202.84±11.23 mL,t=4.574,P=0.000).②All fractures healed in the 2 groups,and the fracture healing time was shorter in ZNN group compared to PFNA group(4.27±0.82 vs 6.46±0.98 weeks,t=6.890,P=0.000),and the bed rest time and complete weight-bearing walk start time were shorter in ZNN group compared to PFNA group(16.35±3.16 vs 22.54±3.37 days,t=5.642,P=0.000; 22.46±4.36 vs 29.74±5.32 weeks,t=6.323,P=0.000).There was no statistical difference in hip pain VAS score and Harris hip score between the 2 groups at 3 months after the surgery(5.21±2.12 vs 5.22±1.73 points,t=0.251,P=0.523; 52.52±3.43 vs 54.51±2.76 points,t=0.532,P=0.243).The hip pain VAS score was lower while the Harris hip score was higher in ZNN group compared to PFNA group at 12 months after the surgery(1.22±0.26 vs 3.75±0.68 points,t=5.623,P=0.000; 93.51±4.23 vs 81.95±3.99 points,t=8.431,P=0.000).The hip pain VAS score decreased and the Harris hip score increased in the 2 groups at 12 months after the surgery compared with that at 3 months after the surgery(t=4.523,P=0.000; t=7.654,P=0.000; t=7.534,P=0.000; t=8.564,P=0.000).③The incision infection was found in 1 patient in ZNN group and 5 cases in PFNA group,and the infection was controlled after application of antibiotics.Moreover,the hip osteoarthritis was found in 2 patients in PFNA group,and the hip function was improved after rehabilitation training.There was no statistical difference in complication incidence rate between the 2 groups(χ2=3.523,P=0.061).Conclusion:ZNN internal fixation has such advantages as shorter operative time,hospital stays,bed rest time and complete weight-bearing walk start time,fewer intraoperative X-ray exposure,less intraoperative blood loss and faster fracture healing,furthermore,it can be more conducive to hip pain remission and hip function recovery compared to PFNA internal fixation in treatment of ITFs in the aged,whereas the two methods are similar to each other in the safety.

参考文献/References:

[1] 江涛,江林,史俊德,等.多功能牵引床骨牵引治疗高龄股骨转子间骨折[J].中医正骨,2020,32(7):51-54.
[2] PRAFUL R.Postoperative follow up in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of femur a comparative study using dynamic hip screw and proximal femoral nail[J].International Journal of Orthopaedics Sciences,2020,6(1):1030-1032.
[3] 辛博.股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗老年股骨转子间骨折[J].临床骨科杂志,2022,25(1):100-102.
[4] 张兆尧,戢勇.闭合复位股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗老年股骨转子间骨折[J].临床骨科杂志,2022,25(1):97-100.
[5] KUMAR C Y,KUMAR P A,RAHUL P,et al.Zimmer natural nails in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric fractures:a longitudinal study[J].J Clin Diagn Res,2021,15(5):RC05-RC08.
[6] SHINA Y S,CHAE J E,KANG T W,et al.Prospective randomized study comparing two cephalomedullary nails for elderly intertrochanteric fractures:Zimmer natural nail versus proximal femoral nail antirotation Ⅱ[J].Injury,2017,48(7):1550-1557.
[7] 危杰.股骨转子间骨折[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2004,6(5):554-557.
[8] 蒋协远,王大伟.骨科临床疗效评价标准[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2005:123-124.
[9] 刘云鹏,刘沂.骨与关节损伤和疾病的诊断分类及功能评定标准[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2002:216-217.
[10] CHINOY M A,NAQVI S Z G,KHAN M A,et al.Nottingham Hip Fracture Score as a predictor of 3 months postoperative mortality in patients undergoing surgical fixation of hip fractures:a prospective study[J].J Pak Med Assoc,2020,70(Suppl 1):S3-S5.
[11] 张威,赵士君,李翔,等.改良“糖果包扎”钢丝内固定联合股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定治疗老年A2型股骨转子间骨折的临床研究[J].中医正骨,2021,33(10):23-28.
[12] JHA V,AHMED T.Modified short proximal femoral nail for intertrochanteric fractures of femur in indian patients-our experience[J].Malays Orthop J,2020,14(2):72-82.
[13] 林海青,贾少华,许伟斌,等.InterTAN与股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定治疗股骨转子间骨折疗效和安全性的Meta分析[J].中医正骨,2021,33(5):34-39.
[14] 孙群周,阮成群,陈武林,等.股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定与股骨近端锁定钢板内固定治疗A2.3型股骨转子间骨折合并大转子外侧壁冠状面破损的对比研究[J].中医正骨,2021,33(4):9-14.
[15] 梁伟,王永会,马仲锋.InterTan髓内钉与解剖型股骨近端髓内钉治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的疗效比较[J].科学技术与工程,2019,19(7):45-49.
[16] 张晨曦,顾晓峰,李雅欣,等.股骨近端防旋髓内钉、解剖型锁定钢板、人工股骨头置换治疗老年人股骨粗隆间骨折疗效比较[J].南京医科大学学报(自然科学版),2019,39(1):104-108.
[17] GARGANO G,POETA N,OLIVA F,et al.Zimmer natural nail and ELOS nails in pertrochanteric fractures[J].J Orthop Surg Res,2021,16(1):509.
[18] SUH J S,RYU H G,ROH Y J,et al.Comparison of the U-Blade Gamma3 Nail and the Zimmer natural nail for the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture[J].J Korean Fract Soc,2021,34(2):57-63.
[19] 陈健,左才红,张财义,等.解剖型髓内钉和股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的疗效比较[J].北京大学学报(医学版),2019,51(2):283-287.
[20] 汪红林,许生领,魏龙雨,等.应用解剖型髓内钉与股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的效果对比[J].中国临床保健杂志,2021,24(3):382-387.
[21] 冯佳慧,胡传真,茅凌洲,等.解剖型髓内钉和股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的临床对照研究[J].国际骨科学杂志,2020,41(4):238-242.
[22] 刘中砥,徐海林,陈建海,等.解剖型股骨近端髓内钉治疗老年转子间骨折的初步疗效[J].中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志,2017,3(5):265-269.
[23] 张涛,曹溢.股骨近端短型防旋髓内钉和短型解剖型髓内钉治疗老年股骨转子间骨折的效果[J].中外医学研究,2021,19(31):47-50.
(收稿日期:2021-09-17 本文编辑:杨雅)

相似文献/References:

[1]赵云昌.人工股骨头置换治疗老年粉碎性股骨转子间骨折[J].中医正骨,2015,27(08):31.
[2]姜自伟,黄枫,郑晓辉,等.老年股骨转子间骨折患者的围手术期风险评估与控制[J].中医正骨,2015,27(08):33.
[3]倪新宇,方策.外固定器治疗股骨转子间骨折的研究进展[J].中医正骨,2015,27(07):48.
[4]张明强.生物型加长柄半髋关节置换术治疗 高龄不稳定股骨转子间骨折疗效观察[J].中医正骨,2015,27(02):56.
[5]李书良,李启义,李建明,等.锁定钢板内固定联合自体髂骨植骨治疗 股骨近端粉碎性骨折[J].中医正骨,2015,27(05):31.
[6]王智勇,陈柯,田可为,等.联合应用摇杆技术和钳夹技术微创治疗股骨转子部骨折[J].中医正骨,2015,27(05):36.
[7]张磊,柴浩.股骨近端髓内钉与动力髋螺钉固定治疗 老年股骨转子间骨折的系统评价[J].中医正骨,2015,27(03):27.
　ZHANG Lei,CHAI Hao.Systematic review on proximal femoral nail versus dynamic hip screw fixation for treatment of intertrochanteric fracture in the aged[J].The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology,2015,27(03):27.
[8]王定,胡丰根,胡奇志,等.前侧入路可吸收螺钉内固定治疗Pipkin骨折[J].中医正骨,2015,27(03):49.
[9]汪迎春,吕一.经皮微创股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定治疗 高龄股骨转子间骨折的手术室护理[J].中医正骨,2015,27(01):77.
[10]李亚楠.老年股骨转子间骨折合并2型糖尿病的围手术期护理[J].中医正骨,2016,28(02):77.
[11]温超海,何忠,李永斌,等.闭合复位伽玛钉改良成锁定支架内固定治疗 老年股骨转子间骨折[J].中医正骨,2015,27(11):32.
[12]孙群周,阮成群,李光明,等.股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定治疗 老年不稳定型股骨转子间骨折[J].中医正骨,2015,27(10):20.
[13]方策,倪新宇,王宏伟,等.迟氏正骨手法复位单臂外固定支架固定治疗 老年股骨转子间骨折[J].中医正骨,2015,27(10):22.
[14]郑艳峰,吴勋,周荣昌,等.股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定与动力髋螺钉内固定治疗 老年股骨转子间骨折的对比研究[J].中医正骨,2015,27(04):24.
　ZHENG Yanfeng,WU Xun,ZHOU Rongchang,et al.A comparative study of proximal femoral nail antirotation internal fixation versus dynamic hip screw internal fixation for treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in the aged[J].The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology,2015,27(03):24.
[15]龚江浩.股骨近端防旋髓内钉联合抗骨质疏松药物治疗 不稳定型老年股骨转子间骨折的临床观察[J].中医正骨,2015,27(04):29.
　GONG Jianghao.A combination therapy of proximal femoral nail antirotation and anti-osteoporotic drugs for the treatment of unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures in the aged[J].The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology,2015,27(03):29.
[16]马江涛,俞敏,俞高峰,等.快速康复外科理论在老年股骨转子间骨折治疗中的应用[J].中医正骨,2015,27(01):39.
[17]吴天然,陈夏平,李铭雄,等.微创孟氏架外固定治疗老年股骨顺转子间骨折的临床研究[J].中医正骨,2016,28(05):5.
　WU Tianran,CHEN Xiaping,LI Mingxiong,et al.A clinical study of minimally invasive external fixation with Meng's fixator for treatment of femoral antegrade intertrochanteric fractures in the aged[J].The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology,2016,28(03):5.
[18]费国芳,费红良,王金法.两种内固定方法治疗老年不稳定性股骨转子间骨折的对比研究[J].中医正骨,2016,28(05):9.
　FEI Guofang,FEI Hongliang,WANG Jinfa.Comparison of two kinds of internal fixation for treatment of unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures in the aged[J].The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology,2016,28(03):9.
[19]王国柱,肖斌,孙鹏程,等.带大转子柄人工股骨头置换术治疗高龄股骨转子间不稳定性骨折[J].中医正骨,2016,28(05):54.
[20]杨小海,徐峰,尹自飞,等.亚洲型股骨近端防旋髓内钉内固定治疗老年股骨转子间骨折[J].中医正骨,2016,28(05):58.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
通讯作者:水明斌 E-mail:987998559@qq.com
更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01