【摘要】 目的比较微创小切口人工全髋关节置换术和传统人工全髋关节置换术对股骨头坏死的治疗效果。方法选取2013年4月~2015年4月我院骨科于共治疗30例(35髋)老年股骨头缺血性坏死患者,按照治疗方法不同分为对照组(15例,18髋)和观察组(15例,17髋),对照组采用传统人工全髋关节置换术治疗,观察组微创小切口人工全髋关节置换术治疗,比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、髋关节功能评分(Harris评分)和治疗效果。结果观察组手术时间、术中出血量等手术情况均显著优于对照组(P<0.01);经过治疗,两组患者Harris评分均显著提高(P<0.01),观察组患者治疗后Harris评分显著高于对照组(P<0.01);随访1年后,观察组患者术后优良率为93.33%,显著高于对照组的60.00%(P<0.05)。结论传统人工全髋关节置换术和微创小切口人工全髋关节置换术均能改善股骨头坏死患者髋关节功能,但后者效果更佳,术后股骨头塌陷发生率更低。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To compare the effect of femoral head necrosis treated bytotal hip arthroplasty in a minimally-invasive small incision and traditional artificial total hip replacement.Methods From April 2013 to April 2015,30 elderly patients(35 hips) with avascular necrosis of the femoral head were treated in department of orthopedics in our hospital were selected.they were divided into control group(n=15,18 hips) and observation group(n=15,17 hips) based on different therapeutic methods.In the control group,traditional artificial total hip replacement was used,and in the observation group,total hip arthroplasty in a minimally-invasive small incision was adopted.The surgical time,intraoperative amount of bleeding,score of hip joint(Harris score) and therapeutic effect in two groups were compared.Results In the observation group,the surgical time,the intraoperative amount of bleeding were better than those in the control group(P<0.01).After therapy,Harris score was significantly improved in two groups(P<0.01).In the observationgroup,Harris score was greatly higher after therapy than that in the control group(P<0.01).After one-year follow-up visits,the good rate of observaion group after surgery was 93.33%, higher than that of control group of 60.00%(P<0.05).Conclusion Both traditional artificial total hip replacement and total hip arthroplasty in a minimally-invasive small incision can improve the function of hip joint in patients with femoral head necrosis,but the latter is more effective whose incidence of postoperative femoral head collapse is lower.更多还原