中国组织工程研究

中国组织工程研究 ›› 2011, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (9): 1706-1710.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8225.2011.09.045

• 骨与关节综述 bone and joint review • 上一篇    

保髋治疗股骨头缺血性坏死生存质量的评价标准

郑志辉，曾意荣   

  1. 广州中医药大学第一附属医院关节一科， 广东省广州市  510405
  • 收稿日期:2010-07-17 修回日期:2010-11-12 出版日期:2011-02-26 发布日期:2011-02-26
  • 通讯作者: 曾意荣，博士，主任医师，广州中医药大学第一附属医院关节一科， 广东省广州市 510405
  • 作者简介:郑志辉★，男，1984年生，广东省汕头市人，汉族，广州中医药大学在读硕士，主要从事髋膝关节疾病的研究方面的研究。

Hip-preserving treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head Evaluation criteria of quality of life

Zheng Zhi-hui, Zeng Yi-rong   

  1. First Department of Bone Joint, First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou   510405, Guangdong Province, China
  • Received:2010-07-17 Revised:2010-11-12 Online:2011-02-26 Published:2011-02-26
  • Contact: Zeng Yi-rong, Doctor, Chief physician, First Department of Bone Joint, First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510405, Guangdong Province, China zeng6612@163.com
  • About author:Zheng Zhi-hui★, Studying for master’s degree, First Department of Bone Joint, First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510405, Guangdong Province, China 89000231@qq.com

PDF

357

被引次数

12

摘要：

背景：目前评价保髋治疗的疗效标准较多，没有统一标准，因此保髋治疗的疗效缺乏一定的可比性。
目的：通过回顾及分析现有的用于保髋治疗疗效的各种评价标准，试图研制一款特异性的用于评价保髋治疗疗效的生存质量量表。
方法：应用计算机检索Pubmed数据库(2000/2010-08)，以“Osteonecrosis Femoral Head、quality of life”或“Osteonecrosis Femoral Head、curative effect”为检索词；应用计算机检索CNKI数据库(1994-01/2009-12)，以“股骨头坏死、疗效”或“股骨头坏死、生存质量”为检索词。选择与股骨头坏死保髋治疗疗效或生存质量相关，同一领域文献则选择近期发表或发表在权威杂志文章。根据纳入标准共31篇文章进行综述。
结果与结论：现有的评价保髋治疗的疗效标准过分的侧重髋关节的疼痛、功能、关节活动等方面，局限于髋关节或下肢的局部改变情况，对患者整体的生存质量反应不够，而以SF-36为代表的生存质量量表评价标准却缺乏一定的特异性，都未能更全面更具特异性的用于评价保髋治疗的疗效。因此，研制一款特异性的用于评价股骨头坏死保髋治疗疗效的生存质量量表成一种必要。

关键词: 股骨头缺血性坏死, 保髋治疗, 评价标准, 生存质量, 关节活动

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: There are many criteria used to evaluate the curative effects of hip-preserving treatment for osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH), and there have been no consistent criteria, so the curative effects of hip-preserving treatment lack comparability to some extent.
OBJECTIVE: To review and analyze a variety of criteria for evaluating the curative effects of hip-preserving treatment and to develop a specific quality of life scale of hip-preserving treatment.
METHODS: A computer-based retrieval of Pubmed database using key words “osteonecrosis, femoral head, quality of life”, or “osteonecrosis, femoral head, curative effect” for manuscripts published from August 2000 to August 2010 and of CNKI database for manuscripts published from January 1994 to December 2009 using key words “femoral head necrosis, curative effect” or “femoral head necrosis, quality of life”. Manuscripts that address hip-preserving treatment of ONFH and related quality of life or manuscripts that were recently published or in the high-impact journals were included in this paper. Finally, 31 manuscripts were reviewed.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The current criteria for evaluating the curative effects of hip-preserving treatment focus on pain, function, and range of motion of hip joints, but do not lay emphasis on the local changes of hip joints or lower limbs, which can not sufficiently reflect the overall quality of life of patients. The SF-36 scale lack specificity to some extents and cannot be used to evaluate the curative effects of hip-preserving treatment systemically and specifically. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a specific quality of life scale for evaluating the curative effects of hip-preserving treatment of ONFH.

中图分类号: