Suppr超能文献

可扩张型股骨近端髓内钉与Gamma股骨近端髓内钉治疗AO/OTA 31A1-3型骨折的比较

Expandable proximal femoral nail versus gamma proximal femoral nail for the treatment of AO/OTA 31A1-3 fractures.

作者信息

Michael Drexler, Yaniv Warschawski, Tal Frenkel Rutenberg, Kessler Evan G, Eyal Amar, Nimrod Snir, Ehud Rath, Gilad Eizenberg, Ely Steinberg L

机构信息

Division of Orthopedic Surgery. Tel Aviv Medical Center, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Division of Orthopedic Surgery. Tel Aviv Medical Center, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

出版信息

Injury. 2016 Feb;47(2):419-23. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.10.013. Epub 2015 Oct 28.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The gamma-proximal femoral nail (GPFN) and the expandable proximal femoral nail (EPFN) are two commonly used intramedullary devices for the treatment of AO 31A1-3 proximal femur fractures. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes and complication rates in patients treated by both devices.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 299 patients (149 in the GPFN group and 150 in the EPFN group, average age 83.6 years) were treated for AO 31A1-3 proximal femur fractures in our institution between July 2008 and February 2013. Time from presentation to surgery, level of experience of the surgeon, operative time, amount of blood loss and number of blood transfusions were recorded. Postoperative radiological variables, including peg/screw location, tip to apex distance and orthopaedic complications, as, malunion, nonunion, surgical wound infection rates, cutouts, periprosthetic fractures and the incidence of non-orthopaedic complications. Functional results were estimated using the modified Harris Hip Score, and quality of life was queried by the SF-36 questionnaire.

RESULTS

The GPFN and the EPFN fixation methods were similar in terms of functional outcomes, complication rates and quality of life assessments. More patients (107 vs. 73) from the GPFN group were operated within 48 h from presentation (44.8 h vs. 49.9 h for the EPFN group, p=0.351), and their surgery duration and hospitalisation were significantly longer (18.5 days vs. 26 days, respectively, p<0.001). The GPFN patients were frequently operated by junior surgeons: 90% (135) while 50.6% (76) of the EPFN operations were performed by senior doctors. Other intraoperative measures were similar between groups. Cutout was the most common complication affecting 6.7% of the GPFN group and 3.3% of the EPFN group (p=0.182).

CONCLUSIONS

Good clinical outcomes and low complication rates in the GPFN and the EPFN groups indicate essentially equivalent safety and reliability on the part of both devices for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures.

摘要

引言

伽马股骨近端髓内钉(GPFN)和可扩张股骨近端髓内钉(EPFN)是治疗AO 31A1 - 3型股骨近端骨折常用的两种髓内固定器械。本研究旨在比较使用这两种器械治疗患者的疗效及并发症发生率。

患者与方法

2008年7月至2013年2月期间,我院共治疗了299例AO 31A1 - 3型股骨近端骨折患者(GPFN组149例,EPFN组150例,平均年龄83.6岁)。记录从就诊到手术的时间、外科医生的经验水平、手术时间、失血量及输血次数。术后影像学指标,包括钉/螺钉位置、尖顶距及骨科并发症,如畸形愈合、骨不连、手术伤口感染率、内固定物穿出、假体周围骨折以及非骨科并发症的发生率。使用改良Harris髋关节评分评估功能结果,通过SF - 36问卷询问生活质量。

结果

GPFN和EPFN固定方法在功能结果、并发症发生率及生活质量评估方面相似。GPFN组更多患者(107例对73例)在就诊后48小时内接受手术(EPFN组为44.8小时对49.9小时,p = 0.351),但其手术时间和住院时间显著更长(分别为18.5天对26天,p < 0.001)。GPFN组患者多由初级外科医生进行手术:90%(135例),而EPFN组手术的50.6%(76例)由高级医生完成。两组间其他术中指标相似。内固定物穿出是最常见的并发症,影响了GPFN组的6.7%和EPFN组的3.3%(p = 0.182)。

结论

GPFN组和EPFN组良好的临床结果及低并发症发生率表明,这两种器械在治疗股骨近端骨折方面的安全性和可靠性基本相当。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验