Comparison of four metal fixation implants for femoral intertrochanteric fractures in old patients

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2014.26.012

Abstract

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The selection of metal implant for old patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture should focus on patient’s age, osteoporotic degree, perioperative status and type of fracture. Individual therapeutic program should be made.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the therapeutic effects of four types of metal implant fixation for femoral intertrochanteric fracture in old patients.
METHODS: 180 old patients with femoral intertrochanteric fractures treated from September 2009 to September 2012 were analyzed. Four kinds of metal implants were used for repair of fracture. There were 45 patients in the dynamic hip screw group, proximal femoral nail anti-rotation group, Gamma nail group and anatomical dynamic hip lock nickelclad group, separately. Operation time, blood loss, hospital time, Harris score after operation, fracture healing time and complications in different groups were compared.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Operation time and hospital time were shorter, and blood loss was fewer in the anatomical dynamic hip lock nickelclad group and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation group compared with the dynamic hip screw group and Gamma nail group (P < 0.05), but the excellent and good rate of Harris score after operation was higher (P < 0.05). No significant difference was detected between anatomical dynamic hip lock nickelclad group and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation group (P > 0.05). The incidence of complications was significantly lower in the anatomical dynamic hip lock nickelclad group and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation group compared with the Gamma nail group and dynamic hip screw group (P < 0.05). Results suggested that anatomical dynamic hip lock nickelclad and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation are reliable in treatment of intertrochanteric fracture in old patients, show less postoperative complications, and are ideal choices for implant fixation of femoral intertrochanteric fracture in old patients.

中国组织工程研究杂志出版内容重点：人工关节；骨植入物；脊柱；骨折；内固定；数字化骨科；组织工程

全文链接：

Key words: femoral fractures, internal fixators, fracture healing, postoperative complications

CLC Number:

R318

Li Jing-yang, Zhou Yu-bo, Qiao Wei-min, Yan Tao, Wang Guang-dong, Wang Hong-bo. Comparison of four metal fixation implants for femoral intertrochanteric fractures in old patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2014, 18(26): 4163-4167.

Figures/Tables 5

References

[1]Majernicek M, Dungl P, Kolman J, et al. Osteosynthesis of intracapsular femoral neck fractures by dynamic hip screw (DHS) fixation. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2009;4: 319-325.
[2]Ho M, Garau G, Walley G, et al. Minimally invasive dynamic hip screw for fixation of hip fractures. Int Orthop. 2009;2: 555-560.
[3]Terry Canale S. Campell's Operative Orthopedics.10th ed. Jinan: Shangdong Science ＆Technology Press, 2005:2760.
[4]陈军明,李文成,蔡宇.选择适宣的金属植入物固定治疗投骨近端骨折[J].中国组织工程研究,2013,17(9):1679-1685.
[5]Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;4:737-755.
[6]张经纬,蒋垚,张先龙,等. 股骨转子间骨折不同手术方法比较[J]. 中华骨科杂志,2005,25(1):7-11.
[7]周国强.解剖型钢板与动力髋螺钉治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的对比分析[J].临床和实验医学杂志,2011,16 (10):1279-1280.
[8]赵勇刚．解剖型钢板与DHS治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的效果比较[J].中国医学创新,2011,23(8):37-38.
[9]Kitamura S, Hasegawa Y, Suzuki S, et al. Functional outcome after hip fracture in Japan. Clip Orthop. 1998;(348):29-36.
[10]韩亮．三种固定方法治疗股骨粗隆间骨折98例分析比较[J].中国保健营养, 2012, 23(11):395-396.
[11]薛春堂,郝鸿伟,刘敬,等.老年人股骨粗隆间骨折109例手术疗效分析[J].陕西医学杂志,2010,39(7):844-845.
[12]张进.DHS和Gamma钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效比较[J].中国医药指南,2011,9(1):37-38.
[13]陈红卫,王子阳,赵品益,等. 动力髋螺钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折并发症原因分析及防治[J].实用骨科杂志,2005,11(5):404-405.
[14]方大标,王秋根,张秋林,等.医源性因素对DHS治疗髋部骨折疗效的影响[J]. 中华创伤骨科杂志,2004,6(5):525-528.
[15]郭世明,丁真奇,洪加源,等.3种内固定方法治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的病例对照研究[J].中国骨伤,2012,25(6):474-477．
[16]夏广春.老年股骨粗隆问骨折两种内固定方式疗效分析[J].中国当代医药,2011,18(15):152-155.
[17]高斌.老年股骨粗隆间骨折不同内固定治疗疗效观察[J].四川医学,2012, 33(1):80-82.
[18]杜一鑫,陈国富.解剖型钢板与动力髋螺钉治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折的疗效对比[J].中国现代医生,2011,49(7):84-85.
[19]Lung YT, Kam WL, Leung YF, et al. Subcapital femoral neck fracture following successful trochanteric fracture treatment with a dynamic hip screw: a report of five cases. Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2007;15:238-241.
[20]Bhatti A, Abbasi A. Intra pelvic total migration of sliding screw in intertrochanteric fracture. Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2007; 17(6): 371-373.
[21]Anwar R, Boorgula V, Nicholl JE. Intrapelvic penetration of the dynamic hip screw during removal: lesson learnt--always use a coupling screw. Trauma. 2007;5:105-106.
[22]刘海春,陈允震,杨子来,等.股骨粗隆间粉碎性骨折不同内固定疗效分析[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2005,20(1):18-20.
[23]梁国建．股骨转子间骨折的不同手术治疗效果分析[J].中国卫生产业,2013, 9(2):157-159.
[24]刘爱国,谷文光,邓亮,等.不同手术方法治疗老年股骨转子间骨折疗效分析[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2012,20(12):1072-1076.
[25]Adams CI, Robinson CM, Court-Brown CM, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur. Orthop Trauma. 2001;6:394-400.
[26]熊鹰,王大兴,柳百烁,等.解剖型髋动力带锁钢板的研制及临床应用[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2008,16(6):419-422.
[27]黄异飞,潘静,熊鹰.解剖型髋动力带锁钢板治疗股骨转子间骨折的疗效评价[J].中华创伤杂志,2009,25(1):61-65.
[28]赵仲伟,施新革,李学民,等.锁定钢板与动力髋螺钉治疗股骨转子间骨折的Meta分析[J].军医进修学院学报,2012,33(8):853-857.