Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Democritus University of Thrace, Medical School, University General Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Alexandroupolis, Greece.
Injury. 2010 Mar;41(3):279-84. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2009.09.012.
Numerous studies have been published regarding the comparison between intramedullary nail and the dynamic hip screw and plate for the fixation of intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients. In this paper we present a comparative study of these two methods regarding their systemic effects on this group of patients.
MATERIALS-METHODS: This is a randomized trial of 120 consecutive patients with an intertrochanteric fracture treated with either extramedullary fixation (dynamic hip screw and plate; DHS, Synthes-Stratec, Oberdorf, Switzerland) or intramedullary nail (Gamma nail, Stryker Howmedica, Freiburg, Germany and Endovis BA, Citieffe, Bologna, Italy). The parameters that we assessed pre-operatively, in addition to their demographics, included their mental state (MMSE), their nutritional and immune state and their pulmonary function. Intra-operatively we calculated the amount of radiation exposure, the amount of blood loss and the length of operative time for each procedure. Postoperatively we repeated the calculation of the mental and pulmonary state and the blood loss, during days 1, 3, and 10 and related them to the ease of the patient's mobilization.
Decreased bleeding and post-operative pain, reduced post-operative morbidity and faster recovery of function were better but not significant in the group of intramedullary fixation (all p>0.05). However, in the same group there were slightly more patients in whom the MMSE was falling, together with their pulmonary function, suggesting that this method probably predisposes to higher chances of pulmonary dysfunction and the possibility of pulmonary embolism.
We found no significant differences between the two methods of stabilization of these fractures regarding their systemic effects perioperatively. The classic dynamic hip screw can preserve its position as a safe and effective solution for these already vulnerable patients having sustained a trochanteric fracture against the novel intramedullary techniques.
已经有许多研究比较了髓内钉与动力髋螺钉和钢板治疗老年患者股骨转子间骨折的疗效。本文旨在比较这两种方法对该组患者的全身影响。
材料-方法:这是一项随机试验,共纳入 120 例股骨转子间骨折患者,分别采用髓外固定(动力髋螺钉和钢板;DHS,Synthes-Stratec,Oberdorf,瑞士)或髓内固定(Gamma 钉,Stryker Howmedica,Freiburg,德国和 Endovis BA,Citieffe,博洛尼亚,意大利)。除了人口统计学数据外,我们还在术前评估了他们的精神状态(MMSE)、营养和免疫状态以及肺功能。术中我们计算了每种手术的辐射暴露量、失血量和手术时间。术后,我们在第 1、3 和 10 天重复计算精神和肺状态以及失血量,并将其与患者的活动能力相关联。
髓内固定组的出血量和术后疼痛减少,术后发病率降低,功能恢复更快,但无显著差异(均 P>0.05)。然而,在同一组中,有更多的患者 MMSE 下降,同时肺功能也下降,这表明这种方法可能更容易导致肺功能障碍和肺栓塞的可能性。
我们发现这两种稳定这些骨折的方法在围手术期的全身影响方面没有显著差异。经典的动力髋螺钉可以作为一种安全有效的解决方案,保留其在已经脆弱的股骨转子间骨折患者中的地位,而新型的髓内技术则具有一定的优势。