Department of Orthopedic Surgery, CR & WISCO General Hospital, Affiliated to Wuhan University of Science and Technology, No. 209 Yejin Road, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Emergency General Hospital, Beijing, China.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Apr 13;21(1):230. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03259-5.
Femoral neck fractures are one of the problems in clinical treatment. The prognosis is uncertain. Currently, No internal fixation method is superior to other internal fixation methods in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. Therefore, the internal fixation system needs to be further explored. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of femoral neck dynamic compression locking system (DCLS) and multiple cannulated compression screws(MCCS) in the treatment of femoral neck fractures.
A prospective analysis of 54 cases of femoral neck fractures treated with either a DCLS (n = 28) or MCCS (n = 26) was conducted between December 2015 and November 2017 in authors' hospitals. The perioperative and postoperative parameters of the two groups were recorded and evaluated.
Fifty-four patients were followed up for 24-47 months. The etiology was caused by a fall. There was no significant difference in follow-up time, operation time, incision length, surgical blood loss, the incidence of perioperative and postoperative healing complications, and mobility in the two groups (all P > 0.05). The Harris score, fracture healing time, femoral neck shortening, partial weight-bearing time and complete weight-bearing time were significantly better in the DCLS group than in the MCCS group (all P < 0.05). The fracture healing rate in the DCLS group was higher than that in the MCCS group.
The DCLS and MCCS might be equally effective in terms of operation time, incision length, surgical blood loss, the incidence of perioperative and postoperative healing complications, and mobility in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. However, the DCLS is superior to the MCCS in Harris score, fracture healing time, femoral neck shortening, weight-bearing time and fracture healing rate. So, DCLS deserves further study.
股骨颈骨折是临床治疗中的问题之一,其预后不确定。目前,尚无一种内固定方法优于其他内固定方法治疗股骨颈骨折,因此需要进一步探索内固定系统。本研究旨在比较股骨颈动力加压锁定系统(DCLS)和多枚空心加压螺钉(MCCS)治疗股骨颈骨折的临床疗效。
对 2015 年 12 月至 2017 年 11 月作者医院收治的 54 例股骨颈骨折患者分别采用 DCLS(n=28)或 MCCS(n=26)治疗的前瞻性分析,记录并评估两组患者的围手术期和术后参数。
54 例患者获得 24-47 个月随访。病因均为跌倒所致。两组患者的随访时间、手术时间、切口长度、手术出血量、围手术期及术后愈合并发症发生率、活动度差异均无统计学意义(均 P>0.05)。DCLS 组的 Harris 评分、骨折愈合时间、股骨颈缩短、部分负重时间及完全负重时间均显著优于 MCCS 组(均 P<0.05)。DCLS 组的骨折愈合率高于 MCCS 组。
DCLS 和 MCCS 治疗股骨颈骨折在手术时间、切口长度、手术出血量、围手术期及术后愈合并发症发生率、活动度方面疗效相当,但在 Harris 评分、骨折愈合时间、股骨颈缩短、负重时间及骨折愈合率方面 DCLS 优于 MCCS。因此,DCLS 值得进一步研究。