摘要:目的:探讨老年人股骨粗隆间骨折不同手术方式的选择。方法:我院2004年1月至2007年12月间应用不同术式治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折110例,其中动力髋螺钉(DHS)25例, 股骨近端髓内钉(PFN)41例,人工股骨头置换44例。术后所有患者均获随访,平均12.6个月。对术后并发症和按照Kuderna 改良 Merli D’Aubigne标准得到的髋关节功能恢复优良数(率)进行评价。结果:术后出现并发症3例,其中PFN术式2例;人工股骨头置换术式1例。围手术期内无伤口感染,无死亡病例。三种术式总体优良数(率)为:107(97.3%)。结论:三种手术方式各有其优缺点,没有一种术式能普遍适用于各种类型粗隆间骨折,临床上,为了最大限度降低手术风险,我们没有必要专注或偏好于某一种手术方式,要根据患者的个体差异及每种术式的优缺点,灵活地为每例股骨粗隆间骨折患者制定出其最适宜的手术方式,大都能取得满意的疗效。Abstract: Objective: To investigate the chosen of 3 different surgical methods in the treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly. Methods:From January, 2004 to December, 2007, 110 cases with the femoral intertrochanteric fractures in the elderly were treated with the followed 3 kinds of operations respectively:dynamic hip screw (25 cases), proximal femoral nail (41 cases), hip hemiarthroplasty (44 cases). After surgery all patients were followed up; Followedup period range from 6 months to 18 months(average 12.6 months). The good and excellent number (rate) of 3 surgical methods with Merli D’Aubigne evaluation criteria were evaluated, and compared in the postoperative complications. Results: 3 complications occurred postoperatively ( 2 with PFN,1 with hip hemiarthroplasty), none wound infection or died in Perioperatie. The total good successful number (rate) was 107(97.3%). Conclusion:Each has its advantages and its disadvantages. None of three kinds of surgical methods can be used generally all kinds of the femoral intertrochanter fracture. In clinical work, we don not need to focus on or prefer to the only one of them in order to minimize the risk. The good response to treatment will be get if we can choose the appropriate method according to the individual differences of the advantages and disadvantages of each method.
ObjectiveTo explore the effectiveness of minimally invasive clamp reduction technique via anterior approach in treatment of irreducible intertrochanteric femoral fractures.MethodsBetween January 2015 and January 2019, 59 patients with irreducible intertrochanteric femoral fractures were treated with minimally invasive clamp reduction technique via anterior approach. There were 29 males and 30 females with an average age of 77.9 years (range, 45-100 years). The causes of injury included falling in 46 cases, traffic accident in 6 cases, smashing in 2 cases, and falling from height in 5 cases. The time from injury to operation was 1-14 days (mean, 3.8 days). The fractures were classified as AO type 31-A1 in 12 cases, type 31-A2 in 25 cases, type 31-A3 in 22 cases.ResultsAll fractures were reduced well and the fracture reduction took 10 to 30 minutes, with an average of 19 minutes. All patients were followed up 13-25 months, with an average of 17.6 months. Among them, 2 cases of pronation displacement of proximal fracture segment died for infection or falling pneumonia after internal fixation failed. Six patients with reversed intertrochanteric femoral fractures experienced re-pronation and abduction displacement of the lateral wall after internal fixation, but the fractures all healed. The rest of the patients had no fracture reduction loss, and the fractures healed with an average healing time of 5.9 months (range, 3-9 months). Except for 2 patients who died, the Harris score of hip joint function of the remaining 57 patients was excellent in 49 cases and good in 8 cases at last follow-up.ConclusionThe minimally invasive clamp reduction technique via anterior approach for irreducible intertrochanteric femoral fractures is simple and effective. For irreducible intertrochanteric femoral fractures related to lateral wall displacement, after clamp reduction and intramedullary nail fixation, the lateral wall should be reinforced in order to avoid reduction loss and internal fixation failure.
Objective To introduce a novel comprehensive classification for femoral intertrochanteric fractures, and to accommodate the clinical requirement for the world-wide outbreak of geriatric hip fractures and surgical operations. Methods On the basis of reviewing the history of classification of femoral intertrochanteric fractures and analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) classification in different periods, combined with the current situation of extensive preoperative CT scan and three-dimensional reconstruction and widespread use of intramedullary nail fixation in China, the “Elderly Hip Fracture” Research Group of the Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery Committee of the Chinese Rehabilitation Medical Association proposed a novel comprehensive classification for femoral intertrochanteric fractures, focusing on the structure of fracture stability reconstruction during internal fixation. Results The novel comprehensive classification of femoral intertrochanteric fractures incorporates multiple indicators of fracture classification, including the orientation of the fracture line, the degree of fracture fragmentation, the lesser trochanteric bone fragment and its distal extension length (>2 cm), the posterior coronal bone fragment and its anterior extension width (involving the lateral cortex of the head and neck implant entry point), transverse fracture of the lateral and anterior wall and its relationship with the implant entry point in the head and neck, and whether the cortex of the anteromedial inferior corner can be directly reduced to contact, etc. The femoral intertrochanteric fractures are divided into 4 types (type A1 is simple two-part fractures, type A2 is characterized by lesser trochanter fragment and posterior coronal fractures, type A3 is reverse obliquity and transverse fractures, type A4 is medial comminution which lacks anteromedial cortex transmission of compression force), each of which is subdivided into 4 subtypes and further subdivide into finer subgroups. In a review of 550 trochanteric hip fracture cases by three-dimensional CT, type A1 accounted for 20.0%, type A2 for 62.5%, type A3 for 15.5%, and type A4 for 2.0%, respectively. For subtypes, A2.2 is with a “banana-like” posterior coronal fragment, A2.4 is with distal cortex extension >2 cm of the lesser trochanter and anterior cortical expansion of the posterior coronal fragment to the entry portal of head-neck implants, A3.4 is a primary pantrochanteric fracture, and A4.4 is a concomitant ipsilateral segmental fracture of the neck and trochanter region. ConclusionThe novel comprehensive classification of femoral intertrochanteric fractures can describe the morphological characteristics of fractures in more detail, include more rare and complex types, provide more personalized subtype selection, and adapt to the clinical needs of both fractures and surgeries.