北京大学学报(医学版) ›› 2020, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (6): 1102-1106. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.06.019

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

有限切开复位髓内外联合固定技术治疗股骨转子下骨折的临床随访

刘中砥,许庭珉,党育(),张殿英,付中国   

  1. 北京大学人民医院创伤救治中心,北京大学人民医院创伤骨科,北京 100044
  • 收稿日期:2020-06-09 出版日期:2020-12-18 发布日期:2020-12-13
  • 通讯作者: 党育 E-mail:drdangyu@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    教育部长江学者和创新团队发展计划(IRT_16R01);北京大学医学部学院建设项目(BMU2019XY007-01)

Clinical effectiveness of less invasive intramedullary nail fixation combined with titanium cable cerclage for subtrochanteric fractures

Zhong-di LIU,Ting-min XU,Yu DANG(),Dian-ying ZHANG,Zhong-guo FU   

  1. Trauma Medicine Center, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing 100044, China
  • Received:2020-06-09 Online:2020-12-18 Published:2020-12-13
  • Contact: Yu DANG E-mail:drdangyu@163.com
  • Supported by:
    Ministry of Education Innovation Program of China(IRT_16R01);Key Laboratory of Trauma and Neural Regeneration (Peking University), Ministry of Education(BMU2019XY007-01)

RICH HTML

  

摘要:

目的:探讨有限切开辅助复位下钛缆环扎联合髓内钉固定治疗股骨转子下骨折的手术技术及临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析2015年1月至2017年12月期间46例股骨转子下骨折患者病例资料,其中男性14例,女性32例;年龄44~92岁,平均(77.83±10.66)岁;左侧17例,右侧29例,致伤原因包括高处坠落、交通事故及意外跌倒。按照Seinsheimer 分型:ⅢA 型26例,ⅢB 型11 例,Ⅳ型9 例,均为闭合性损伤。所有患者采用有限切开辅助复位下钛缆环扎联合髓内钉固定的方法进行治疗。记录手术时间、出血量、骨折愈合时间等数据,分别采用Sanders 创伤性髋关节功能评分、Harris评分等指标评价术后康复效果。结果:46例患者均获得随访,时间12~36个月,平均28个月。所有患者均获得骨性愈合,愈合时间3~6个月。平均手术时间(131.09±20.36) min,平均术中失血量(191.96±111.03) mL,平均住院天数(10.61±2.85) d。术后Sanders评分和Harris评分优良率分别为86.96%和91.30%。随访病例未出现骨折部位感染、内固定松动断裂、畸形愈合等并发症。结论:有限切开辅助复位技术可很好解决股骨转子下骨折的术中复位问题,钛缆环扎联合髓内钉固定可获得骨折断端良好的对位对线和稳定性,是治疗股骨转子下骨折的有效方法。

关键词: 有限切开复位, 股骨近端髓内钉, 股骨转子下骨折

Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate the surgical technique and clinical effect of less invasive intrame-dullary nail fixation combined with titanium cable cerclage in the treatment of subtrochanteric fractures. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in 46 cases of subtrochanteric fractures in Peking University People’s Hospital from January 2015 to December 2017. Among them, there were 14 males and 32 females, with an average age of (77.83±10.66) years (44-92 years); 17 cases on the left side and 29 cases on the right side. The causes of injury included crash from a height, traffic accident and accidental fall. According to Seinsheimer classification, there were 26 cases of type Ⅱ, 11 cases of type Ⅲ, 9 cases of type Ⅳ, and these cases were all closed injury. After admission, these patients underwent continuous tibial tuberosity bone traction to maintain the length and force line of the lower extremity, so as to reduce the difficulty of intraoperative fracture reduction. Anticoagulant therapy was given before operation to reduce perioperative thrombotic complications. All the patients were treated with less invasive intramedullary nail fixation combined with titanium cable cerclage. Operation time, blood loss during surgery, time of fracture healing were recorded, Harris and Sanders scoring system were used to assess hip function after operation at each follow-up time point. Results: All the included patients underwent surgery successfully. Average operative time and intraoperative blood loss of these patients were (131.09 ± 20.06) min and (191.96±111.03) mL, respectively. All the patients were followed up satisfactorily, with an average follow-up time of 28 months. The fractures received bone healing within 3-6 months, average hospital stay was (10.61±2.85) days. The Sanders score was excellent in 3 cases, good in 37 cases and common in 6 cases, with an excellent and good rate of 86.96%. The Harris score was excellent in 6 cases, good in 36 cases, with an excellent and good rate of 91.30%. There were no cases of wound infection, loss of reduction, nonunion of fracture or internal fixation failure. Hip pain symptoms were effectively relieved in most patients. Conclusion: Less invasive intramedullary nail fixation combined with titanium cable cerclage can obtain good alignment and stability of fracture ends, which is an effective method for the treatment of subtrochanteric fractures.

Key words: Limited open reduction, Proximal femoral nail, Subtrochanteric fractures

中图分类号: 

  • R683.4

表1

股骨转子下骨折钛缆环扎联合髓内钉固定治疗术前与末次随访时数据对比"

Items Data P value
Patient characteristics
Age/years, x-±s 77.83±10.66
Gender, n
Male 14
Female 32
BMI/(kg/m2), x-±s 23.91±5.37
Operation time/min 131.09±20.06
Follow-up results
Pre-operation Harris score
Post-operation Harris score 84.53±7.66
Pre-operation Sanders score
Post-operation Sanders score 49.13±4.09
Pre-operation VAS score 5.67±1.34 <0.05
Post-operation VAS score 1.34±0.53

图1

左侧股骨转子下骨折,Seinsheimer分型 ⅢA 型,行左侧有限切开钛缆环扎联合髓内钉固定治疗,术后恢复良好"

[1] Mattisson L, Bojan A, Enocson A. Epidemiology, treatment and mortality of trochanteric and subtrochanteric hip fractures: data from the Swedish fracture register[J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2018,19(1):369.
pmid: 30314495
[2] Munson M. Operative treatment of subtrochanteric fractures[J]. Orthopedics, 1983,6(7):874-879.
doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-19830701-10 pmid: 24823033
[3] Sun Q, Ge W, Li R, et al. Intramedullary fixation with minimally invasive clamp-assisted reduction for the treatment of ipsilateral femoral neck and subtrochanteric fractures: A technical trick[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2017,31(11):e390-e394.
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000933 pmid: 28650943
[4] Mingo-Robinet J, Torres-Torres M, Moreno-Barrero M, et al. Minimally invasive clamp-assisted reduction and cephalomedullary nailing without cerclage cables for subtrochanteric femur fractures in the elderly: Surgical technique and results[J]. Injury, 2015,46(6):1036-1041.
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.01.019 pmid: 25712701
[5] Cech O, Sosna A. Principles of the surgical treatment of subtrochanteric fractures[J]. Orthop Clin North Am, 1974,5(3):651-662.
pmid: 4599737
[6] Saarenpää I, Heikkinen T, Jalovaara P. Treatment of subtrochanteric fractures. A comparison of the Gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw: Short-term outcome in 58 patients[J]. Int Orthop, 2007,31(1):65-70.
doi: 10.1007/s00264-006-0088-9 pmid: 16633810
[7] Leonidis S, Panagopoulos N. Surgical treatment of subtrochanteric fractures[J]. Injury, 1974,6(1):70-76.
doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(74)90176-4 pmid: 4421052
[8] Müller T, Topp T, Kühne CA, et al. The benefit of wire cerclage stabilisation of the medial hinge in intramedullary nailing for the treatment of subtrochanteric femoral fractures: A biomechanical study[J]. Int Orthop, 2011,35(8):1237-1243.
doi: 10.1007/s00264-010-1204-4
[9] Oh CW, Kim JJ, Byun YS, et al. Minimally invasive plate osteosynjournal of subtrochanteric femur fractures with a locking plate: A prospective series of 20 fractures[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2009,129(12):1659-1665.
pmid: 19169695
[10] Lundy DW, Acevedo JI, Ganey TM, et al. Mechanical comparison of plates used in the treatment of unstable subtrochanteric femur fractures[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 1999,13(8):534-538.
doi: 10.1097/00005131-199911000-00003 pmid: 10714778
[11] Hu SJ, Zhang SM, Yu GR. Treatment of femoral subtrochanteric fractures with proximal lateral femur locking plates[J]. Acta Ortop Bras, 2012,20(6):329-333.
doi: 10.1590/S1413-78522012000600003 pmid: 24453626
[12] Apóstol-González SA. Subtrochanteric fractures of the femur. Treatment with locking intramedullary nailing. An experience without C-Arc. The guide-wire stopping method for verify distal locking is described[J]. Injury, 2017,48(11):2563-2568.
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.055 pmid: 28867643
[13] Shin WC, Moon NH, Jang JH, et al. Comparative study between biologic plating and intramedullary nailing for the treatment of subtrochanteric fractures: Is biologic plating using LCP-DF superior to intramedullary nailing?[J]. Injury, 2017,48(10):2207-2213.
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.08.028 pmid: 28847590
[14] Ekström W, Karlsson-Thur C, Larsson S, et al. Functional outcome in treatment of unstable trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures with the proximal femoral nail and the Medoff sliding plate[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2007,21(1):18-25.
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31802b41cf pmid: 17211264
[15] Aronoff PM, Davis PM Jr., Wickstrom JK. Intramedullary nail fixation as treatment of subtrochanteric fractures of the femur[J]. J Trauma, 1971,11(8):637-650.
pmid: 5565647
[1] 熊士凯,史尉利,王安鸿,谢兴,郭秦炜. 腓骨远端撕脱骨折的影像学诊断:踝关节X线与CT三维重建的比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(1): 156-159.
[2] 侯国进,周方,田耘,姬洪全,张志山,郭琰,吕扬,杨钟玮. 外侧锁定接骨板治疗股骨远端骨折术后翻修的相关影响因素[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(6): 1172-1177.
[3] 刘冰川,孙川,邢永,周方,田耘,姬洪全,张志山,郭琰,吕扬,杨钟玮,侯国进,高山. 中青年股骨颈骨折内固定术后发生缺血性股骨头坏死的相关因素[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020, 52(2): 290-297.
[4] 崔云鹏,米川,王冰,潘元星,林云飞,施学东. 股骨近端病理性骨折患者围手术期的临床特征分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(5): 875-880.
[5] 刘冰川,杨钟玮,周方,姬洪全,张志山,郭琰,田耘. 肱骨近端骨折微创锁定钢板改良内固定的疗效分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(2): 277-282.
[6] 刘中砥,马明太,陈建海,付中国,姜保国. 肱骨近端骨折“时间-角度测量”复位评估技术及临床疗效评估[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(6): 1003-1007.
[7] 张伯松, 李文毅, 刘兴华, 危杰, 贺良, 王满宜. 肱骨干骨折手术与非手术治疗的比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(5): 851-854.
[8] 李旭, 李奉龙, 鲁谊, 朱以明, 郭斯翊, 李屹钧, 姜春岩. 锁定钢板治疗非骨质疏松性复杂肱骨近端骨折的中期临床及影像学随访研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(5): 855-860.
[9] 张伯松,李文毅,刘兴华,危杰,贺良,王满宜. 肱骨干骨折手术与非手术治疗的比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 0, (): 851-854.
[10] 李旭,李奉龙,鲁谊,朱以明,郭斯翊,李屹钧,姜春岩. 锁定钢板治疗非骨质疏松性复杂肱骨近端骨折的中期临床及影像学随访研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 0, (): 855-860.
[11] 高志强,安贵生,李绍良. 应用扩展的桡侧腕屈肌入路治疗复杂的桡骨远端关节内骨折[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(2): 349-353.
[12] 李莹,査晔军,李庭,公茂琪,蒋协远. 两种手术入路治疗肱骨远端冠状面剪切骨折的临床效果[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(6): 1026-1031.
[13] 武京伟,沈惠良,刘利民,高志华. PHILOS钢板治疗肱骨近端骨折早期内固定失效原因[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(4): 683-685.
[14] 孙丽颖,郭阳,荣起国,田光磊. 舟骨骨折术后康复治疗的有限元分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(4): 751-封三.
[15] 张健,蒋协远,黄晓文. 纵向钢丝捆绑结合克氏针张力带治疗髌骨下极粉碎骨折[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(3): 534-538.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!