[1]雷 军.股骨颈动力交叉钉系统与倒三角形空心螺钉固定治疗GardenⅢ/Ⅳ型股骨颈骨折的效果对比[J].医学信息,2025,38(09):137-140.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2025.09.028]
　LEI Jun.Comparison of the Effect of Femoral Neck Dynamic Cross Nail System and Inverted Triangle Hollow Screw Fixation in the Treatment of GardenⅢ/Ⅳ Femoral Neck Fracture[J].Journal of Medical Information,2025,38(09):137-140.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2025.09.028]
点击复制

股骨颈动力交叉钉系统与倒三角形空心螺钉固定治疗GardenⅢ/Ⅳ型股骨颈骨折的效果对比()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
38卷
期数:
2025年09期
页码:
137-140
栏目:
论著
出版日期:
2025-05-01

文章信息/Info

Title:
Comparison of the Effect of Femoral Neck Dynamic Cross Nail System and Inverted Triangle Hollow Screw Fixation in the Treatment of GardenⅢ/Ⅳ Femoral Neck Fracture
文章编号:
1006-1959（2025）09-0137-04
作者:
雷 军
临川区第二人民医院骨外科，江西 抚州 344100
Author(s):
LEI Jun
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, the Second People’s Hospital of Linchuan District, Fuzhou 344100, Jiangxi, China
关键词:
股骨颈动力交叉钉系统; 倒三角形空心螺钉固定; GardenⅢ/Ⅳ型; 股骨颈骨折
Keywords:
Femoral neck dynamic cross nail system;  Inverted triangle hollow screw fixation;  GardenⅢ/Ⅳ;  Femoral neck fracture
分类号:
R687.3
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2025.09.028
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 对比股骨颈动力交叉钉系统与倒三角形空心螺钉固定治疗GardenⅢ/Ⅳ型股骨颈骨折的效果。方法 选取2020年10月1日-10月31日我院诊治的66例GardenⅢ/Ⅳ型股骨颈骨折患者为研究对象，采用随机数字表法分为对照组（n=33）和观察组（n=33）。对照组采用倒三角形空心螺钉固定治疗，观察组采用股骨颈动力交叉钉系统治疗，比较两组临床效果、临床手术指标、髋关节功能、疼痛情况、并发症发生率。结果 观察组治疗优良率为96.97%，对照组治疗优良率为93.94%，组间比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；与对照组比较，观察组手术时间较长、术中出血量较大，但骨折愈合时间、住院时间均较短（P＜0.05）；与对照组比较，观察组术后1、3、6个月髋关节功能Harris评分较高（P＜0.05）；与对照组比较，观察组术后1、2个月VAS评分较低（P＜0.05）；观察组并发症发生率为6.06%，对照组并发症发生率为15.15%，组间比较，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 股骨颈动力交叉钉系统与倒三角形空心螺钉固定治疗GardenⅢ/Ⅳ型股骨颈骨折均具有良好的效果，但股骨颈动力交叉钉系统治疗可提高髋关节功能、减轻疼痛程度、降低并发症发生率，且可缩短骨折愈合和住院时间，值得临床应用。
Abstract:
Objective To compare the effect of femoral neck dynamic cross nail system and inverted triangle hollow screw fixation in the treatment of GardenⅢ/Ⅳ femoral neck fracture. Methods A total of 66 patients with GardenⅢ/Ⅳ femoral neck fracture diagnosed and treated in our hospital from October 1, 2020 to October 31, 2020 were selected as the research objects and divided into control group (n=33) and observation group (n=33) by random number table method. The control group was treated with inverted triangular hollow screw fixation, and the observation group was treated with femoral neck dynamic cross nail system. The clinical effect, clinical operation index, hip joint function, pain and complication rate were compared between the two groups. Results Theclinical rate of treatment in the observation group was 96.97%, and that in the control group was 93.94%, there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared with the control group, the operation time of the observation group was longer, the intraoperative blood loss was larger, but the fracture healing time and hospitalization time were shorter (P<0.05). Compared with the control group, the Harris score of hip joint function in the observation group was higher at 1, 3 and 6 months after operation (P<0.05). Compared with the control group, the VAS score of the observation group was lower at 1 and 2 months after operation (P<0.05). The incidence of complications in the observation group was 6.06%, and that in the control group was 15.15%, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion Both femoral neck dynamic cross nail system and inverted triangular hollow screw fixation have good effects in the treatment of GardenⅢ/Ⅳ femoral neck fractures. However, femoral neck dynamic cross nail system can improve hip function, reduce pain degree, reduce the incidence of complications, and shorten fracture healing and hospitalization time, which is worthy of clinical application.

参考文献/References:

[1]邹懿,胡波,胡松,等.动力交叉钉和空心螺钉治疗Garden Ⅲ/Ⅳ型股骨颈骨折的疗效比较[J].重庆医学,2023,52(6):840-844. [2]常猛,刘小坡,冯云波,等.改良SuperPATH入路双极人工股骨头置换术治疗老年股骨颈骨折早中期疗效分析[J].中国临床医生杂志,2022,50(4):465-468.[3]千建荣,朱仕文.采用空心钉内固定与半髋关节置换治疗老年GardenⅠ、Ⅱ型股骨颈骨折的疗效对比[J].骨科临床与研究杂志,2023,8(6):350-355. [4]袁炳乾.DAA入路空心钉联合钢板内固定术治疗GardenⅢ、Ⅳ型股骨颈骨折的临床疗效观察[D].昆明:昆明医科大学,2021.[5]刘刚,刘卫东,张猛,等.股骨颈骨折多枚空心加压螺钉内固定术后股骨头坏死的影响因素分析[J].局解手术学杂志,2021,30(6):506-510. [6]温明韬,梁学振,李嘉程,等.两种方式固定SandersⅡ型跟骨骨折后的力学稳定性[J].中国组织工程研究,2022,26(6):838-842.[7]马邹,张上上,张占磊,等.平行置钉与倒三角置钉治疗中青年股骨颈骨折的疗效对比[J].川北医学院学报,2022,37(4):509-512. [8]周东,郭卫中,吴舒婷,等.两种股骨颈骨折内固定方式的近期疗效比较[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2022,30(16):1451-1456.[9]梁跃闯,李艳军,于鹤童,等.正三角构型、倒三角构型空心螺钉内固定及股骨颈动力交叉钉系统固定治疗股骨颈骨折的有效性分析[J].创伤外科杂志,2022,24(9):659-664.[10]Falez F,Papalia M,Favetti F,et al.Total hip arthroplasty instability in Italy[J].Int Orthop,2017,41(3):635-644.[11]陈方,刘修其,邓钰泓,等.空心拉力螺钉“F”形固定PauwelsⅢ型股骨颈骨折[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2022,30(10):954-957.[12]中华医学会骨科学分会创伤骨科学组,中国医师协会骨科医师分会创伤专家工作委员会．成人股骨颈骨折诊治指南[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2018,20(11):921-928．[13]龙玉斌,李静桥,刘虎,等.双反牵引复位器与牵引床辅助股骨颈动力交叉钉系统复位固定股骨颈骨折的疗效比较[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2022,24(5):385-391．[14]刘冰川,孙川,邢永,等.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,2020,52(2):290-297.[15]刘智芳,周方,田耘,等.动力髋螺钉与空心加压螺钉治疗新鲜股骨颈骨折的比较[J].中国微创外科杂志,2018,18(9):774-778.[16]阮哲,朱勇,林涨源,等.正三角和倒三角排列空心螺钉治疗股骨颈骨折的系统评价[J].中国组织工程研究,2020,24(6):924-930.[17]葛双雷,王雪飞,胡国东,等．股骨颈动力交叉钉系统治疗中青年Pauwels Ⅱ型股骨颈骨折临床价值[J].中国骨与关节杂志,2022,11(4):255-260．[18]吴军,杨成伟,朱六龙,等.动力髋螺钉螺旋刀片固定用于股骨颈骨折的抗压和防旋能力[J].温州医科大学学报,2019,49(8):603-605,611.[19]王照东,官建中,吴敏,等.两种空心螺钉构型治疗青壮年股骨颈骨折的疗效比较[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2021,35(3):318-322.[20]赵耀,程文丹,许新忠,等.股骨颈动力交叉钉系统和空心加压螺钉治疗股骨颈骨折近期疗效分析[J].生物骨科材料与临床研究,2022,19(2):67-72.[21]许晓军,苏社英.动力交叉钉和空心螺钉治疗GardenⅢ/Ⅳ型股骨颈骨折的疗效和并发症观察[J].贵州医药,2023,47(10):1591-1592.

相似文献/References:

[1]王 欣,马文泽,陈军明.股骨颈动力交叉钉系统与空心螺钉内固定治疗股骨颈骨折的早期疗效与术后并发症观察[J].医学信息,2024,37(21):78.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.21.017]
　WANG Xin,MA Wenze,CHEN Junming.Observation of Early Efficacy and Postoperative Complications of Femoral Neck System and Cannulated Compression Screws in the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fracture[J].Journal of Medical Information,2024,37(09):78.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2024.21.017]

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01