• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Comparison of postoperative pain between InterTan and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation in femoral intertrochanteric fractures: a retrospective study.InterTan与股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折术后疼痛的比较:一项回顾性研究
Am J Transl Res. 2024 Aug 15;16(8):3859-3866. doi: 10.62347/UVLL3087. eCollection 2024.
2
Comparison of clinical outcomes with proximal femoral nail anti-rotation versus InterTAN nail for intertrochanteric femoral fractures: a meta-analysis.股骨近端防旋髓内钉与 InterTAN 钉治疗股骨转子间骨折的临床疗效比较:一项荟萃分析。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Oct 29;15(1):500. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-02031-8.
3
A retrospective analysis of the InterTan nail and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation-Asia in the treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femur fractures in the elderly.InterTan钉与股骨近端抗旋髓内钉亚洲版治疗老年不稳定型股骨转子间骨折的回顾性分析
J Orthop Surg Res. 2016 Jan 15;11:10. doi: 10.1186/s13018-016-0344-7.
4
A comparison of functional and radiological outcome of combine compression antegrade intertrochanteric nail (InterTan) and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation II (PFNA-II) in elderly patients with intertrochanteric fractures.老年股骨转子间骨折患者中联合加压顺行股骨转子间髓内钉(InterTan)与股骨近端抗旋髓内钉II(PFNA-II)功能和影像学结果的比较
Pak J Med Sci. 2023 Jan-Feb;39(1):96-100. doi: 10.12669/pjms.39.1.6946.
5
[Effectiveness of proximal femoral nail anti-rotation combined with minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis versus Intertan intramedullary nail fixation in treatment of intertrochanteric fracture with incomplete lateral wall].股骨近端防旋髓内钉联合微创经皮钢板接骨术与Intertan髓内钉固定治疗外侧壁不完整的股骨转子间骨折的疗效比较
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2020 Sep 15;34(9):1085-1090. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202001071.
6
Proximal femoral nail antirotation versus InterTan nail for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.股骨近端防旋髓内钉与 InterTan 钉治疗股骨转子间骨折:系统评价和荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2024 Jul 9;19(7):e0304654. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304654. eCollection 2024.
7
[Comparison of PFNA and InterTAN intramedullary nail in treating unstable femoral intertrochanteric fractures].PFNA与InterTAN髓内钉治疗不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折的比较
Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2017 Jul 25;30(7):597-601. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-0034.2017.07.003.
8
[Clinical observation of different intramedullary fixation methods for the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture].不同髓内固定方法治疗股骨转子间骨折的临床观察
Zhongguo Gu Shang. 2024 Mar 25;37(3):293-9. doi: 10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.20230275.
9
A retrospective analysis of the InterTan nail and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients with osteoporosis: a minimum follow-up of 3 years.InterTan钉与股骨近端抗旋髓内钉治疗老年骨质疏松性转子间骨折的回顾性分析:至少3年随访
J Orthop Surg Res. 2017 Oct 10;12(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s13018-017-0648-2.
10
The Asia proximal femoral nail antirotation versus the standard proximal femoral antirotation nail for unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly Chinese patients.亚洲型股骨近端防旋髓内钉与标准股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗中国老年患者不稳定型股骨转子间骨折的比较
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015 Apr;101(2):143-6. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2014.12.011. Epub 2015 Feb 18.

引用本文的文献

1
Implants for fixation of intertrochanteric femoral fracture: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.用于股骨转子间骨折固定的植入物:随机对照试验的系统评价和网状荟萃分析
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025 Aug 25;26(1):818. doi: 10.1186/s12891-025-09032-w.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparison of the clinical effect of DHS and PFNA on senile osteoporotic fracture and their significance of changes in BALP expression level.DHS 和 PFNA 治疗老年骨质疏松性骨折的临床效果比较及其 BALP 表达水平变化的意义。
J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2020 Dec 1;20(4):556-562.
2
Intertrochanteric Femur Fracture Treatment in Asia: What We Know and What the World Can Learn.亚洲股骨转子间骨折的治疗:我们所知与世界可借鉴之处
Orthop Clin North Am. 2020 Apr;51(2):189-205. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2019.11.011. Epub 2020 Jan 30.
3
Internal fixation treatments for intertrochanteric fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized evidence.股骨粗隆间骨折的内固定治疗:随机证据的系统评价与Meta分析
Sci Rep. 2015 Dec 11;5:18195. doi: 10.1038/srep18195.
4
Comparative study of InterTAN and Dynamic Hip Screw in treatment of femoral intertrochanteric injury and wound.InterTAN与动力髋螺钉治疗股骨转子间骨折及伤口的对比研究
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014 Dec 15;7(12):5578-82. eCollection 2014.
5
The association between multiple sclerosis and fracture risk.多发性硬化症与骨折风险之间的关联。
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014 Nov 15;7(11):4327-31. eCollection 2014.
6
InterTan nail versus Gamma3 nail for intramedullary nailing of unstable trochanteric fractures.InterTan钉与Gamma3钉用于不稳定型转子间骨折的髓内钉固定
Diagn Pathol. 2014 Oct 1;9:191. doi: 10.1186/s13000-014-0191-y.
7
Management of combination fractures of the atlas and axis: a report of four cases and literature review.寰椎和枢椎联合骨折的治疗:4例报告及文献复习
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014 Aug 15;7(8):2074-80. eCollection 2014.
8
InterTan nail versus Proximal Femoral Nail Antirotation-Asia in the treatment of unstable trochanteric fractures.InterTan髓内钉与股骨近端防旋髓内钉-亚洲型治疗不稳定型股骨转子间骨折的对比
Orthopedics. 2013 Mar;36(3):e288-94. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20130222-16.
9
Occurrence of secondary fracture around intramedullary nails used for trochanteric hip fractures: a systematic review of 13,568 patients.髓内钉治疗转子间骨折后发生的继发性骨折:对 13568 例患者的系统回顾。
Injury. 2012 Jun;43(6):706-11. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2011.10.027. Epub 2011 Dec 3.
10
The new proximal femoral nail antirotation-Asia: early results.新型股骨近端抗旋髓内钉-亚洲版:早期结果
Orthopedics. 2011 May 18;34(5):351. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20110317-26.

InterTan与股骨近端防旋髓内钉治疗股骨粗隆间骨折术后疼痛的比较:一项回顾性研究

Comparison of postoperative pain between InterTan and proximal femoral nail anti-rotation in femoral intertrochanteric fractures: a retrospective study.

作者信息

Li Jing, Wang Sheng, Lu Nan, Chen Aimin

机构信息

Department of Traumatic Orthopedics, Shanghai Fourth People's Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University Shanghai 200434, China.

出版信息

Am J Transl Res. 2024 Aug 15;16(8):3859-3866. doi: 10.62347/UVLL3087. eCollection 2024.

DOI:10.62347/UVLL3087
PMID:39262736
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11384393/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the postoperative pain experienced by elderly patients with unstable trochanteric fractures treated with proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA) and InterTan Nail, focusing on identifying differences among this demographic.

METHODS

A total of 40 elderly patients (age >80 years old) underwent treatment with either the PFNA Nail or InterTan Nail. Observational metrics included the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, changes in implant position via X-ray, blood loss, fixation failures, and Harris Hip Scores (HHS) to assess complications and hip function at various time points.

RESULTS

The study included 26 patients in the PFNA Nail group (Group A) and 26 patients in the InterTan Nail group (Group B). No significant differences were found in the main observational indicators between the two groups (all P>0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement in HHS post-surgery (all P<0.05). However, early post-operative pain scores were lower in the Group B (3.65±1.2) compared to Group A (5.5±0.9) (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite different implant materials being used, outcomes in both groups were consistent and reliable among elderly patients. No significant differences were observed in terms of postoperative functional recovery, mortality, or complications between the groups. Notably, in the early postoperative period (3 days postoperatively), the Group B demonstrated significantly superior pain scores.

摘要

目的

比较采用股骨近端防旋髓内钉(PFNA)和InterTan钉治疗的老年不稳定型转子间骨折患者术后疼痛情况,重点是找出该人群之间的差异。

方法

共有40例老年患者(年龄>80岁)接受了PFNA钉或InterTan钉治疗。观察指标包括疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)、通过X线观察植入物位置的变化、失血量、固定失败情况以及Harris髋关节评分(HHS),以评估不同时间点的并发症和髋关节功能。

结果

该研究包括PFNA钉组(A组)26例患者和InterTan钉组(B组)26例患者。两组主要观察指标差异无统计学意义(所有P>0.05)。两组术后HHS均有显著改善(所有P<0.05)。然而,B组术后早期疼痛评分(3.65±1.2)低于A组(5.5±0.9)(P<0.001)。

结论

尽管使用了不同的植入材料,但两组在老年患者中的治疗效果均一致且可靠。两组在术后功能恢复、死亡率或并发症方面差异无统计学意义。值得注意的是,术后早期(术后3天),B组的疼痛评分明显更优。