Karn N K, Singh G K, Kumar P, Shrestha B, Singh M P, Gowda M Jayaram
Department of Orthopaedics, B. P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences, Dharan, Nepal.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Oct;88(10):1347-50. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B10.18023.
We conducted a randomised controlled trial to compare external fixation of trochanteric fractures of the femur with the more costly option of the sliding hip screw. Patients in both groups were matched for age (mean 67 years, 50 to 100) and gender. We excluded all pathological fractures, patients presenting at more than one week, fractures with subtrochanteric extension or reverse obliquity, multiple fractures or any bone and joint disease interfering with rehabilitation. The interval between injury and operation, the duration of surgery, the amount of blood loss, the length of hospital stay and the cost of treatment were all significantly higher in the sliding hip screw group (p < 0.05). The time to union, range of movement, mean Harris hip scores and Western Ontario and McMaster University knee scores were comparable at six months. The number of patients showing shortening or malrotation was too small to show a significant difference between the groups. Pin-track infection occurred in 18 patients (60%) treated with external fixation, whereas there was a single case of wound infection (3.3%) in the sliding hip screw group.
我们进行了一项随机对照试验,以比较股骨转子间骨折的外固定与成本更高的滑动髋螺钉治疗方案。两组患者在年龄(平均67岁,50至100岁)和性别方面进行了匹配。我们排除了所有病理性骨折、伤后超过一周就诊的患者、伴有转子下延伸或反向斜形的骨折、多发性骨折或任何影响康复的骨与关节疾病。滑动髋螺钉组的受伤至手术间隔时间、手术时长、失血量、住院时间和治疗费用均显著更高(p < 0.05)。六个月时,两组的骨愈合时间、活动范围、平均Harris髋关节评分以及西安大略和麦克马斯特大学膝关节评分相当。出现缩短或旋转不良的患者数量太少,无法显示出两组之间的显著差异。接受外固定治疗的18例患者(60%)发生了针道感染,而滑动髋螺钉组有1例伤口感染(3.3%)。