Gao Hua, Liu Zhenyu, Wang Baojun, Guo Ai
Department of Orthopedics, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China.
Chin J Cancer Res. 2016 Apr;28(2):209-14. doi: 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2016.02.08.
To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of modular endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) compared to proximal femur intramedullary nailing (IMN) for the treatment of proximal femur metastases.
We retrospectively studied the records of patients with proximal femur metastatic lesions treated with surgical stabilization between January 2007 and December 2014 in terms of operation time, blood loss, postoperative score, soreness, Karnofsky performance score (KPS) and survival time.
There were 34 patients treated with surgical stabilization. The mean follow-up period was 12.1?.6 months (range: 10-47 months). Thirteen were treated with EPR and 21 were stabilized with IMN (20 males, 14 females; mean age: 68.7 years). The median survival time was 11.0 months for both groups (P=0.147). The operation time, blood loss and Harris score of IMN group were lower than those of EPR group (P=0.001, P=0.001, P=0.002, respectively).
Both EPR and IMN for treating proximal femur metastasis achieved effective clinical outcomes. Therefore, the suitable surgical methods depended on the general conditions and medical requirements of patients, as well as the technical advantages of the doctor.
评估模块化内置假体置换术（EPR）与股骨近端髓内钉固定术（IMN）治疗股骨近端转移瘤的临床及功能疗效。
我们回顾性研究了2007年1月至2014年12月间接受手术稳定治疗的股骨近端转移瘤患者的记录，内容包括手术时间、失血量、术后评分、疼痛、卡氏功能状态评分（KPS）及生存时间。
34例患者接受了手术稳定治疗。平均随访期为12.1±1.6个月（范围：10 - 47个月）。13例接受EPR治疗，21例采用IMN固定（20例男性，14例女性；平均年龄：68.7岁）。两组的中位生存时间均为11.0个月（P = 0.147）。IMN组的手术时间、失血量及Harris评分均低于EPR组（分别为P = 0.001、P = 0.001、P = 0.002）。
EPR和IMN治疗股骨近端转移瘤均取得了有效的临床疗效。因此，合适的手术方法取决于患者的一般状况和医疗需求，以及医生的技术优势。
