切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华临床医师杂志(电子版)

中华临床医师杂志(电子版) ›› 2017, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (16) : 2115 -2119. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2017.16.002

所属专题： 文献；

临床论著

锁定型Gamma钉与改良Gamma钉治疗高龄不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折的效果比较
张磊1,†(), 沈杰2, 黄宰宇1, 刘丹1, 何帅3, 应志豪1, 吴震东1   
  1. 1. 325000　温州，解放军第118医院骨科
    2. 400038　重庆，第三军医大学西南医院骨科
    3. 325000　温州，解放军第118医院口腔科
  • 收稿日期:2017-02-22 出版日期:2017-08-15
  • 通信作者: 张磊
  • 基金资助:
    温州市科技计划项目(Y20100220)

Clinical effects of locking gamma nail versus modified gamma nail for treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures in elderly patients

Lei Zhang1,†(), Jie Shen2, Zaiyu Huang1, Dan Liu1, Shuai He3, Zhihao Ying1, Zhendong Wu1   

  1. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, the 118th Hospital of PLA, Wenzhou 325000, China
    2. Center of Orthopaedics, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400038, China
    3. Department of Stomatology, the 118th Hospital of PLA, Wenzhou 325000, China
  • Received:2017-02-22 Published:2017-08-15
  • Corresponding author: Lei Zhang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Zhang Lei, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

张磊, 沈杰, 黄宰宇, 刘丹, 何帅, 应志豪, 吴震东. 锁定型Gamma钉与改良Gamma钉治疗高龄不稳定型股骨粗隆间骨折的效果比较[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2017, 11(16): 2115-2119.

Lei Zhang, Jie Shen, Zaiyu Huang, Dan Liu, Shuai He, Zhihao Ying, Zhendong Wu. Clinical effects of locking gamma nail versus modified gamma nail for treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures in elderly patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2017, 11(16): 2115-2119.

目的

比较锁定型Gamma钉（LGN）与改良Gamma钉（MGN）治疗高龄股骨粗隆间不稳定型骨折的临床效果。

方法

回顾性分析解放军第118医院2008年1月至2012年5月143例接受LGN或MGN内固定治疗的高龄股骨粗隆间不稳定型骨折患者的临床资料。其中LGN组67例，MGN组76例，均为不稳定型骨折，对比分析两种手术方法在骨折愈合时间、Harris髋关节功能评分、骨折端压缩程度、颈干角角度变化等方面的差异，其中计量资料采用组间t检验（骨折愈合时间、Harris髋关节功能评分、骨折端压缩程度），计数资料（颈干角角度变化）采用χ2检验。

结果

患者均获得随访，与MGN组比较，LGN组骨折愈合时间较长[（16.8±7.4）周vs （14.4±6.6）周，P<0.05]，但髋关节功能恢复更佳[（86.6±6.3）分vs （83.1±6.7）分，P<0.05]，且颈干角角度变化≥10°比例更小（3.0% vs 14.5%，P<0.05），骨折端压缩程度更少[（4.4±2.5）mm vs （7.3±3.1） mm，P<0.05]。

结论

LGN和MGN均为治疗高龄股骨粗隆间不稳定型骨折的有效方法，但LGN在防止骨折压缩、塌陷及髋关节功能恢复等方面更具优势。

关键词: 股骨粗隆间骨折, 不稳定型, 高龄, 锁定型Gamma钉, 内固定
Objective

To compare the clinical effects of locking gamma nail (LGN) with modified gamma nail (MGN) in the management of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures in elderly patients.

Methods

A total of 143 elderly patients with unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures who were treated with LGN (n = 67) or MGN (n = 76) at the 118th Hospital of PLA from January 2008 to May 2012 and had complete clinical data were retrospectively studied. We compare the two groups in terms of fracture healing time, Harris hip score, degree of fracture compression, and variation of Neck shaft angle. Continuous variables (fracture healing time, Harris hip score, and the degree of fracture compression) were compared using the paired t-test, and comparison of categorical variables (the change of Neck shaft angle) was performed using the chi-squared test.

Results

All of the patients were followed successfully. Compared with the MGN group, the LGN group had significantly longer fracture healing time [(16.8 ± 7.4) weeks vs (14.4 ± 6.6) weeks], less variation of neck-shaft angle (3.0% vs 14.5%), lower degree of fracture compression [(4.4 ± 2.5) mm vs (7.3 ± 3.1) mm], and higher Harris hip score [(86.6 ± 6.3) scores vs (83.1 ± 6.7) scores] (P < 0.05 for all).

Conclusion

Both LGN and MGN are effective in the management of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures in elderly patients, but LGN has more advantages in preventing compression of fracture end and recovery of hip joint function compared to MGN.

Key words: Intertrochanteric femoral fractures, Unstable, Elderly patients, Locking gamma nail, Internal fixation
图1 两种内置物实物对比图　a.锁定型Gamma钉；b.改良Gamma钉
表1 患者术前一般情况及术后骨折复位质量评估（例）
组别 例数 年龄（岁，±s） 性别 AO分型 术前ASA分级 骨折复位质量
男 女 A2 A3 Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ Ⅳ 良好 可 差
LGN组 67 80.5±7.3 27 40 50 17 13 38 16 0 58 7 2
MGN组 76 80.0±6.9 30 46 57 19 15 42 19 0 65 8 3
统计值 ? t=0.402 χ2=0.010 χ2=0.003 χ2=0.034 χ2=0.099
P值 ? 0.689 0.920 0.959 0.983 0.952
表2 2组患者术后随访情况（±s）
组别 例数 随访时间（个月） 骨折愈合（周） 末次Harris评分（分） 颈干角改变≥10°[例（%）] 骨折压缩（mm）
LGN组 67 23.0±6.4 16.8±7.4 86.6±6.3 2（3.0） 4.4±2.5
MGN组 76 23.2±5.8 14.4±6.6 83.1±6.7 11（14.5） 7.3±3.1
统计值 ? t=-0.299 t=2.046 t=3.253 χ2=4.382 t=-6.161
P值 ? 0.766 0.043 0.001 0.036 0.000
图2 两种内置物术后2年颈干角变化效果对比　2a.改良Gamma钉组患者A术后当天右髋部正位X线片示骨折复位可，颈部螺钉位置偏近端，颈干角120°；2b.改良Gamma钉组患者A术后2年右髋部正位X线片示颈干角105°，颈部螺钉出现切割、退钉，骨折端出现明显压缩塌陷，髋内翻畸形；2c.锁定型Gamma钉组患者B术后当天右髋部正位X线片示骨折复位及螺钉位置良好，颈干角131°；2d.锁定型Gamma钉组患者B术后2年右髋部正位X线片示颈干角131°，骨折端无明显压缩
[1]
Carpintero P, Caeiro JR, Carpintero R, et al. Complications of hip fractures: A review [J]. World J Orthop, 2014, 5(4): 402-411.
[2]
Parker MJ, Handoll HH. Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults [J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2010, 8(9): CD000093.
[3]
张磊, 刘丹, 吴震东, 等. 锁定型GAMMA钉治疗不稳定性股骨粗隆间骨折的生物力学分析 [J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2010, 18(12): 1028-1029.
[4]
Zhang L, Shen J, Chen SX, et al. Treatment of unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures with locking gamma nail(LGN): A retrospective cohort study [J]. Int J Surg, 2016, 26(5): 12-17.
[5]
Magi E. ASA classification and perioperative variables as predictors of postoperative outcome [J]. Br J Anaesth, 1997, 78(2): 228.
[6]
Reuling EM, Sierevelt IN, van den Bekerom MP, et al. Predictors of functional outcome following femoral neck fractures treated with an arthroplasty: limitations of the Harris hip score [J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2012, 132(2): 249-256.
[7]
Hassankhani EG, Omidi-Kashani F, Hajitaghi H, et al. How to treat the complex unstable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly patients? DHS or arthroplasty [J]. Arch Bone Joint Surg, 2014, 2(3): 174.
[8]
Kleweno C, Morgan J, Redshaw J, et al. Short versus long cephalomedullary nails for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures in patients older than 65 years [J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2014, 28(7): 391-397.
[9]
Gotfried Y. Integrity of the lateral femoral wall in intertrochanteric hip fractures: an important predictor of a reoperation [J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2007, 89(11): 2552-2553.
[10]
Lorich DG, Geller DS, Nielson JH. Osteoporotic pertrochanteric hip fractures: management and current controversies [J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2004, 86(2): 398-410.
[11]
Saarenpaa I, Heikkinen T, Ristiniemi J, et al. Functional comparison of the dynamic hip screw and the Gamma locking nail in trochanteric hip fractures: a matched-pair study of 268 patients [J]. Int Orthop, 2009, 33(1): 255-260.
[12]
Bojan AJ, Beimel C, Taglang G, et al. Critical factors in cut-out complication after gamma nail treatment of proximal femoral fractures [J]. BMC Musculoskel Dis, 2013, 14(1): 1.
[13]
Vidyadhara S, Rao SK. Cephalomedullary nails in the management of ipsilateral neck and shaft fractures of the femur-One or two femoral neck screws? [J]. Injury, 2009, 40(3): 296-303.
[14]
Ma J, Xing D, Ma X, et al. The percutaneous compression plate versus the dynamic hip screw for treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies [J]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res, 2012, 98(7): 773-783.
[15]
Kuzyk PR, Shah S, Zdero R, et al. A biomechanical comparison of static versus dynamic lag screw modes for cephalomedullary nails used to fix unstable peritrochanteric fractures [J]. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2012, 72(2): E65-E70.
[16]
Dujardin F, Benez C, Polle G, et al. Prospective randomized comparison between a dynamic hip screw and a mini-invasive static nail in fractures of the trochanteric area: preliminary results [J]. J Orthopaed Trauma, 2001, 15(6): 401-406.
[17]
Zhu Y, Meili S, Zhang C, et al. Is the lag screw sliding effective in the intramedullary nailing in A1 and A2 AO-OTA intertrochanteric fractures? A prospective study of Sliding and None-sliding lag screw in Gamma-Ⅲ nail [J]. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2012, 20(1): 1-8.
[1] 伊喆, 王志新, 陈伟, 齐伟亚, 方杰, 石海飞, 赵夏, 赵喆, 竺枫, 盛伟, 陈焱, 张宇昊, 朱瑾, 殷耀斌, 杨勇, 陈山林, 刘波. 机器人辅助无移位急性舟骨骨折经皮内固定的诊疗与手术操作规范[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(06): 464-468.
[2] 蒋庆梅, 巫韧, 杨岸, 陈晓艳, 钟庆. 对囊周神经阻滞在股骨粗隆间骨折患者全麻术中的镇痛效果及认知功能影响的分析[J]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(03): 204-209.
[3] 左解鹏, 周典晟, 王健, 刘文博, 吴长利, 田大伟. 局麻下利用软性膀胱镜联合铥激光治疗麻醉高风险膀胱肿瘤患者的经验[J]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 563-569.
[4] 王艳丽. 快速康复护理在高龄腹股沟疝Lichtenstein手术围手术期的应用[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 350-353.
[5] 朱任飞, 冯秋琪, 肖锋, 陈志, 杨帆. Clavien-Dindo分级和并发症综合指数在高龄肝癌肝切除术安全性评估中的应用[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(03): 312-316.
[6] 李立, 王红莉, 常红, 张艳. 肱骨近端骨折术后功能康复策略现状及新理念下的研究进展[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(03): 284-287.
[7] 左楠, 刘岩, 孙大辉, 刘哲闻, 杨光. 胸大肌三角肌入路与经三角肌外侧入路治疗肱骨近端骨折的疗效分析[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(03): 252-257.
[8] 马小刚, 秦桂兰, 缪嘉吉. 西藏地区复杂肩胛骨骨折手术治疗疗效分析[J]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2023, 11(02): 117-121.
[9] 潘春江, 李科, 李新楼, 杨博, 任雪玲. 高龄老人骨转换代谢标志物与肾功能的相关性研究[J]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2023, 12(05): 260-264.
[10] 于天宇, 杨悦, 陆海涛, 田志永, 李文歌. 高龄急性肾损伤患者连续性肾脏替代治疗的预后及影响因素[J]. 中华肾病研究电子杂志, 2023, 12(03): 134-138.
[11] 王云鹭, 李锡勇, 刘伦, 张鹏, 韩鹏飞, 李晓东. TTIE中桡骨头骨折切开复位内固定与桡骨头置换疗效对比的Meta分析[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2023, 09(04): 240-246.
[12] 杨杨, 刘永志, 刘军峰, 周雪涛, 张东升. 回顾性分析完全胸腔镜下肋骨骨折内固定术治疗肋骨骨折患者的临床效果[J]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2023, 10(03): 137-142.
[13] 江凯乐, 杨异. 肋骨骨折的手术治疗进展及存在问题[J]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2023, 10(03): 149-152.
[14] 张强, 李博闻, 刘振振. 胸骨骨折的外科治疗[J]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2023, 10(02): 80-85.
[15] 周志明, 姜威, 王泽学, 曲博, 梁磊, 张敏. 肋弓骨折手术内固定治疗[J]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2023, 10(02): 63-69.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号