【摘要】 目的比较髋动力带锁钢板(anatomical dynamic hip locking plate,ADHLP)与股骨近端锁定钢板(locking proximal femur plate,LPFP)治疗股骨转子部骨折的疗效。方法回顾性分析2009年7月至2012年3月我院收治的63例股骨转子部骨折患者的临床资料,其中男38例,女24例;年龄35~89岁,平均68.5岁。骨折按AO分型,A1型15例,A2型32例,A3型16例,分为髋动力带锁钢板治疗组35例,股骨近端锁定钢板治疗组28例,比较两种术式的临床疗效。结果两组在手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间及骨折愈合时间方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组术后并发症、平均下地时间、Harris评分优良率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论髋动力带锁钢板、股骨近端锁定钢板治疗各型股骨转子部骨折疗效满意。髋动力带锁钢板有固定牢靠、负重时间早、并发症少、功能恢复好等优点,是一种更有效的方法。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To compared anatomical dynamic hip locking plate with locking proximal femur plate for treatment of intertrochanteric fractures Methods We retrospectively analyzed of the clinical data of 63 cases of intertrochanteric fractures in our hospital from July 2009 to March 2012,including 35 cases treated with anatomical dynamic hip locking plate and 28 cases treated with locking proximal femur plate,and compared the surgical effects Results There were no significant differences in operation time,blood loss during the operation,length of stay,fracture healing time between the group of ADHLP and the group of LPFP(P > 0.05) There were significant differences in Weight-bearing time,operative compications and Harris hip score between them(P < 0.05) Conclusion To different patients with intertrochanteric fracture,the clinical effect of ADHLP or LPFP is good.But ADHLP is an more effective method for intertrochanteric femoral fracture,which has the advantage in firm fixation,early weight-bearing time,operative compications,and better hip joint function.更多还原