Li Kuanglin, Yang Huanhong, Jiang Zhaobo, Peng Wei, Zhou Xing
Department of Orthopedics, Taizhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine Taizhou, Zhejiang, China.
Department of Orthopedics, Taizhou First People's Hospital Taizhou, Zhejiang, China.
Am J Transl Res. 2022 Jul 15;14(7):4795-4803. eCollection 2022.
To compare the differences between proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) and dynamic hip screw (DHS) in treatment of femoral trochanteric fracture and analyze the factors influencing recovery after PFNA treatment.
Eighty-six patients with femoral trochanteric fracture admitted to Taizhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine between January 2019 and June 2021 were enrolled in the study and assigned into a PFNA group and DHS group (n=43 in each group) before undergoing these treatments. The clinical efficacy, inflammatory factors, and myocardial injury markers were compared between the two groups. The influencing factors on recovery after PFNA treatment were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis.
Compared to the DHS group, the PFNA group had shorter surgical time, length of stay in hospital, postoperative weight-bearing time, time of healing and detumescence, and less intraoperative blood loss (all P<0.001). The incidence of post-surgical complications with PFNA was lower than with DHS (P<0.05). The serum levels of interleukin-6, C-reactive protein and tumor necrosis factor-αof the PFNA group were lower than those of the DHS group (all P<0.05). Moreover, the serum levels of cardiac troponin T, creatine kinase-MB and myoglobin in the PFNA group were also lower than for the DHS (all P<0.05). At the first, third, and sixth months after surgery, the Harris scores for PFNA were higher than for DHS (all P<0.05). The univariate and multivariate analysis showed that instability of fracture, history of osteoporosis, excessive intraoperative bleeding, poor compliance with rehabilitation exercise, and long time from injury to surgery were risk factors for poor recovery following PFNA treatment for patients with femoral trochanteric fracture.
Compared to DHS, PFNA had better clinical efficacy and gave lower serum levels of inflammatory factors and myocardial injury markers. Fracture classification, history of osteoporosis, intraoperative amount of bleeding, compliance of rehabilitation exercise, and time from injury to surgery were closely associated with recovery following PFNA treatment.
比较股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)与动力髋螺钉(DHS)治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的差异,并分析影响PFNA治疗后恢复的因素。
选取2019年1月至2021年6月在台州市中医院收治的86例股骨粗隆间骨折患者纳入研究,在进行这些治疗前将其分为PFNA组和DHS组(每组n = 43)。比较两组的临床疗效、炎症因子和心肌损伤标志物。通过单因素和多因素分析PFNA治疗后恢复的影响因素。
与DHS组相比,PFNA组手术时间、住院时间、术后负重时间、愈合和消肿时间更短,术中出血量更少(均P < 0.001)。PFNA术后并发症发生率低于DHS(P < 0.05)。PFNA组血清白细胞介素-6、C反应蛋白和肿瘤坏死因子-α水平低于DHS组(均P < 0.05)。此外,PFNA组血清心肌肌钙蛋白T、肌酸激酶同工酶MB和肌红蛋白水平也低于DHS组(均P < 0.05)。术后第1、3和6个月,PFNA组的Harris评分高于DHS组(均P < 0.05)。单因素和多因素分析表明,骨折不稳定、骨质疏松病史、术中出血过多、康复锻炼依从性差以及受伤至手术时间长是股骨粗隆间骨折患者PFNA治疗后恢复不良的危险因素。
与DHS相比,PFNA临床疗效更好,血清炎症因子和心肌损伤标志物水平更低。骨折分类、骨质疏松病史、术中出血量、康复锻炼依从性以及受伤至手术时间与PFNA治疗后的恢复密切相关。