Suppr超能文献

动力髋螺钉与髓内钉治疗 A1 型转子间骨折:回顾性对比研究及成本分析。

Dynamic hip screw versus intramedullary nailing for the treatment of A1 intertrochanteric fractures: A retrospective, comparative study and cost analysis.

机构信息

Unità Clinica di Ortopedia e Traumatologia, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milano, Italy.

出版信息

Jt Dis Relat Surg. 2022;33(2):314-322. doi: 10.52312/jdrs.2022.646. Epub 2022 Jul 6.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare sliding hip screw and intramedullary nail perioperative results and costs in two-part femoral fractures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2015 and December 2019, a total of 85 patients (70 males, 15 females; mean age: 85.6±9.5 years; range, 33 to 99 years) who were treated for intertrochanteric two-part femoral fractures were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were stratified and divided into two groups according to type of implant used for surgical fixation: one group treated with intramedullary proximal femoral nail (EBA) and the other with sliding hip screw (DHS). Comorbidity, hemoglobin (Hb) level, hematocrit (hct) level, number of transfusions, and days of hospitalization details were evaluated. Postoperative X-rays were analyzed to assess the quality of reduction and to identify non-union, malunion, mechanical failures, and heterotopic ossifications. The modified Harris Hip Score, fracture mobility score, and Parker Mobility Score were calculated. Cost analysis considered the orthopedic device, operating room, transfusion, and hospital costs for the primary hospital stay.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 44 were treated with DHS and 41 were treated with EBA nail by a single surgeon. No significant differences were found in the baseline demographic data. There was a significant increased operative time (p<0.001) and decreased fluoroscopy X-ray exposure time (p=0.031) in the subgroup of patients who underwent DHS fixation. The patients who underwent EBA nail fixation had a significantly higher transfusion rate during hospitalization (p=0.001) and a significantly lower Hb level and hct level on postoperative Day 1 and Day 3 (p<0.05). There were no significant differences in the clinical and functional scores, radiographic outcomes and mortality (p>0.05). The patients who underwent intramedullary nail fixation had higher costs.

CONCLUSION

Sliding hip screws showed decreased postoperative anemization, lower transfusion rates, and similar clinical outcomes compared to the intramedullary nail for two-part femoral fractures. Sliding hip screws should be preferred for A1 intertrochanteric fractures.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较滑动髋螺钉和髓内钉在治疗股骨转子间 2 部分骨折中的围手术期结果和成本。

患者和方法

回顾性分析 2015 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月期间收治的 85 例(男 70 例,女 15 例;平均年龄 85.6±9.5 岁;年龄 33 至 99 岁)股骨转子间 2 部分骨折患者。根据手术固定使用的植入物类型将患者分层并分为两组:一组采用髓内股骨近端钉(EBA)治疗,另一组采用滑动髋螺钉(DHS)治疗。评估合并症、血红蛋白(Hb)水平、红细胞压积(hct)水平、输血次数和住院天数等细节。术后 X 线检查评估复位质量,并确定有无骨不连、畸形愈合、机械故障和异位骨化。计算改良 Harris 髋关节评分、骨折活动评分和 Parker 活动评分。成本分析考虑了骨科器械、手术室、输血和主要住院期间的住院费用。

结果

44 例患者采用 DHS 治疗,41 例患者采用 EBA 钉治疗,均由同一位医生完成。两组患者的基线人口统计学数据无显著差异。DHS 固定组手术时间显著延长(p<0.001),透视 X 射线暴露时间显著缩短(p=0.031)。EBA 钉固定组患者在住院期间输血率显著升高(p=0.001),术后第 1 天和第 3 天 Hb 水平和 hct 水平显著降低(p<0.05)。两组在临床和功能评分、影像学结果和死亡率方面无显著差异(p>0.05)。髓内钉固定组患者的成本更高。

结论

与髓内钉相比,滑动髋螺钉治疗股骨转子间 2 部分骨折可减少术后贫血,降低输血率,且具有相似的临床效果。对于 A1 转子间骨折,应优先选择滑动髋螺钉。

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