JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SURGERY ›› 2018, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (10): 789-791.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.10056483.2018.10.022

Previous Articles     Next Articles

A study of the efficacy and safety evaluation of proximal femoral nail anti rotation fixation for osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures

  

  1. Department of orthopedics,Yulin Second Hospital,Shanxi Province,Yulin 719000,China
  • Online:2018-10-20 Published:2018-10-20

Abstract: Objective  To analyze and discuss the efficacy and safety of proximal femoral nail anti rotation(PFNA)fixation for osteoporotic femoral intertrochanteric fractures.Methods  A total of 89 patients with osteoporotic intertrochanteric fractures were included in the study and divided into observation group including 44 patients receiving proximal femoral nail antirotation surgical treatment.The control group included 45 patients receiving dynamic hip screw(DHS)surgical treatment.The efficacy and safety of the two groups were compared and analyzed. Results The operation time of the observation group[(67.53±8.47)min] was lower than that of the control group[(102.41±8.05)min] and the blood loss was also lower than that of the control group[(170.25±23.67)ml vs(430.58±26.37)ml],and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).Efficacy evaluation showed that the proportion of patients with poor efficacy in the observation group was lower than that in the control group.There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in fracture healing time and rate of effectiveness(P>0.05).The Harris score of the observation group after surgery was 83.22±12.05,and that of the control group was 80.45±15.14.There was no significant difference(P>0.05)between the two groups.Conclusion The treatment of osteoporotic femoral intertrochanteric fractures with proximal femoral nail antirotation has a shorter operation time,less intraoperative damage,and a low risk of various complications.It has many advantages.

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] . [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SURGERY, 2016, 24(1): 74 - 74 .
[2] . [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SURGERY, 2016, 24(4): 254 .
[3] . [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SURGERY, 2016, 24(4): 308 - 308 .
[4] . [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SURGERY, 2016, 24(9): 675 .
[5] . [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SURGERY, 2016, 24(9): 680 .
[6] . [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SURGERY, 2016, 24(9): 696 .
[7] . [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SURGERY, 2016, 24(9): 700 .
[8] . [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SURGERY, 2016, 24(9): 706 .
[9] . [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SURGERY, 2016, 24(9): 714 .
[10] . [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL SURGERY, 2016, 24(9): 717 .