闭合复位髓内钉固定治疗同侧股骨干合并股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效与不愈合危险因素分析

doi:10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2022.2.17

PDF(2111 KB)

中国临床解剖学杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (2) : 211-215. DOI: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2022.2.17

临床研究

闭合复位髓内钉固定治疗同侧股骨干合并股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效与不愈合危险因素分析

马志华，　付宏伟*，　陈晓华

作者信息 +

Analysis of clinical efficacy and nonunion risk factors of closed reduction and intramedullary nailing in the treatment of ipsilateral femoral shaft with intertrochanteric fracture

Ma Zhihua, Fu Hongwei*, Chen Xiaohua

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

目的　评估闭合复位髓内钉治疗同侧股骨干骨折合并股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效并分析造成骨折不愈合的危险因素。方法　回顾性分析2010年1月至2016年12月在我院行闭合复位髓内固定治疗同侧股骨干骨折合并髋部骨折的31例患者，男23例，女8例，年龄(46.4±15.7) 岁（21~73岁）。观察并记录股骨干合并股骨粗隆间骨折患者阻挡钉数量、手术时间、失血量、愈合时间、肢体短缩、髋关节HHS功能评分。对可能造成骨折不愈合的可能因素进行单因素及多因素分析。结果　所有患者随访时间12~48个月，平均随访时间20.1个月。对所有造成骨折不愈合的可能因素进行分析。阻挡钉数量和骨折类型具有统计学意义(P<0.05)，其余因素如损伤机制、手术时间等未见明显统计学意义(P>0.05)。对上述两因素进行多因素分析，阻挡钉数量(OR=2.845, 95% CI 2.164~3.741)和骨折类型(OR=3.388，95% CI 1.966~5.840)为独立危险因素。结论　阻挡钉数量少、股骨干粉碎型骨折是引起骨折不愈合的独立危险因素。闭合复位髓内钉治疗同侧股骨干合并股骨粗隆间骨折安全有效、可提高生活质量，值得临床广泛推广。

Abstract

Objective　To evaluate the clinical efficacy of closed reduction intramedullary nailing in the treatment of ipsilateral femoral shaft fracture with intertrochanteric fracture and to analyze the risk factors for fracture nonunion.　Methods　A retrospective analysis was performed on 31 patients (23 males and 8 females, aged from 21 to 73 years old who underwent closed reduction and intramedullary fixation for ipsilateral femoral shaft fracture with intertrochanteric fracture in our hospital from January 2010 to December 2016. The intramedullary nail type, number of blocking nails, operation time, blood loss, healing time, limb shortening and hip joint HHS function score in femoral shaft patients with intertrochanteric fractures were observed and recorded. The possible factors of fracture nonunion were analyzed by single factor and multiple factors.　Results　All patients were followed up for 12 to 48 months, with an average of 20.1 months. Possible causes of fracture nonunion were analyzed. There were statistical significance in the number of blocking nails and fracture type (P<0.05), while there was no statistical significance in other factors such as injury mechanism, and operation time (P>0.05). Multivariate analysis was conducted for the above two factors. The number of blocking nails (OR=2.845, 95% CI 2.164-3.741) and fracture type (OR=3.388, 95% CI 1.966~5.840) were the independent risk factors. Conclusions The independent risk factors of fracture nonunion are the small number of blocking nails and the comminuted fracture of femoral shaft. Closed reduction intramedullary nailing in the treatment of ipsilateral femoral shaft with intertrochanteric fracture is safe and effective and can improve the quality of life.

导出引用

马志华, 付宏伟, 陈晓华. 闭合复位髓内钉固定治疗同侧股骨干合并股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效与不愈合危险因素分析[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志. 2022, 40(2): 211-215 https://doi.org/10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2022.2.17

Ma Zhihua, Fu Hongwei, Chen Xiaohua. Analysis of clinical efficacy and nonunion risk factors of closed reduction and intramedullary nailing in the treatment of ipsilateral femoral shaft with intertrochanteric fracture[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy. 2022, 40(2): 211-215 https://doi.org/10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2022.2.17

中图分类号： R687.3

参考文献

[1] Seong YJ, Jang JH, Jeon SB, et al. Characteristics and surgical outcomes of intertrochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures associated with ipsilateral femoral shaft fractures treated with closed intramedullary nailing: a Review of 31 consecutive cases over four years at a single institution[J]. Hip Pelvis, 2019, 31(4):190-199. DOI: 10.5371/hp.2019.31.4.190.
[2] Rana R, Patra SK, Khuntia S, et al. Traumatic posterior dislocation of hip with ipsilateral fracture of shaft of femur: temporary fixator-assisted reduction and final fixation with interlocking nail[J]. Cureus,2019,11(8):e5488. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.5488.
[3] Mohan K, Ellanti P, French H, et al. Single versus separate implant fixation for concomitant ipsilateral femoral neck and shaft fractures: A systematic review[J]. Orthop Rev (Pavia),2019,11(2):7963. DOI:10.4081/or.2019.7963.
[4] Rajasekaran RB, Jayaramaraju D, Palanisami DR, et al. Ipsilateral acetabular fracture with displaced femoral head and femoral shaft fracture: A complex floating hip injury[J]. Case Rep Orthop, 2018, 2018: 4937472. DOI: 10.1155/2018/4937472.
[5] Puram C, Pradhan C, Patil A, et al. Outcomes of dynamic hip screw augmented with trochanteric wiring for treatment of unstable type A2 intertrochanteric femur fractures[J]. Injury,2017,48 Suppl 2:S72-S77. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-1383(17)30498-9.
[6] Singh NK, Sharma V, Trikha V, et al. Is PFNA-II a better implant for stable intertrochanteric fractures in elderly population ? A prospective randomized study[J]. J Clin Orthop Trauma,2019, 10 (Suppl 1):S71-S76. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.02.004.
[7] Zhang W, Antony XR, Decruz J, et al. Risk factors for mechanical failure of intertrochanteric fractures after fixation with proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA II): a study in a Southeast Asian population[J]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2020, 141(4): 569-575. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03399-2.
[8] Radaideh AM, Qudah HA, Audat ZA, et al. Functional and radiological results of proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) osteosynthesis in the treatment of unstable pertrochanteric fractures[J]. J Clin Med, 2018, 7(4): 78. DOI: 10.3390/jcm7040078.
[9] Luan F, Wang W, Liu N, et al. Digital Assessment of the implantation angle of proximal femoral nail antirotation helical blade using CT three-dimensional reconstruction[J]. J Invest Surg, 2019, 32(2):111-117. DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2017.1381788.
[10] Compton E, Andras LM, Murgai RR, et al. Isolated femoral shaft fractures in children rarely require a blood transfusion[J]. Injury, 2020, 51(3):642-646. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.01.005.
[11] Cheng T, Xia R, Yan X, et al. Double-plating fixation of comminuted femoral shaft fractures with concomitant thoracic trauma[J]. J Int Med Res, 2018, 46(1):440-447. DOI: 10.1177/0300060517720317.