Results of non-operative treatment following hip fracture compared to surgical intervention

We followed all consecutive hip fracture patients admitted between 2004 and 2006, identified cases in which the intention was to treat non-operative and compared their functional outcome and mortality with a similar cohort treated surgically over the same period. We recorded length of hospital stay, place of discharge, pre and post-fracture mobility and residence, 30 days and 1 year mortality, re-admission due to same fracture and delayed surgery. The group treated surgically was recruited and matched for age, gender, pre and post-fracture mobility, mental confusion and independence. 25 patients were treated non-operative. 22 patients treated surgically over the same time period matched the patient characteristics of the non-operative arm. The mean hospital stay was 13 days in both groups. There were 4 extra-capsular fractures (3 displaced) and 21 intra-capsular fractures (5 displaced) in the non-operative arm and 11 extra-capsular fractures and 9 intra-capsular fractures in the surgically treated arm. 4 patients from the non-operative treatment group underwent late surgery because of persisting hip pain 20 days-2 months after the index event (2 cannulated screws, 1 hemiarthroplasty, 1 total hip arthroplasty). 11 patients in the surgical treatment arm underwent dynamic screw fixation, 1 had cannulated screw, 1 had total hip replacement and 7 had hemiarthroplasty. 14 of the non-operative treated patients were mobile independently or with aid before fracture but only 9 patients retained their pre-fracture mobility following treatment, compared to 16 patients pre-fracture and 11 patients post-fracture after surgery. 16 patients treated non-operative were living independently prior to injury but only 7 went back to their own residence. Of the operatively treated patients 14 patients were living independently and 10 patients went back to their previous residence. 1 month and 1 year mortality in the non-operative treated group was 4/21 and 7/21 respectively compared to 1/20 and 5/20 in the operative fixation group. There was no statistically significant difference in mobility, residence or mortality between the two groups (Fisher exact test, p > 0.05). Non-operative management after hip fracture is suitable for medically unfit patients and does not result in statistically significant difference in functional outcome or mortality compared to patients treated surgically.     

经前后路联合手术治疗L5S1椎体结核

目的 探讨一期经前路病灶清除后路植骨内固定治疗L5S1椎体结核的临床疗效.方法 对40例L5S1椎体结核患者,采用一期经前路病灶清除椎体间植骨加后路椎弓根螺钉内固定植骨融合治疗.结果 所有患者随访6～24个月,35例植骨融合良好,5例融合欠佳;有1例出现尿路感染.结论 一期经前路病灶清除椎体间植骨加后路椎弓根螺钉内固定椎板植骨治疗L5S1椎体结核能在彻底清除病灶的前提下保证脊柱的稳定性,提高植骨块的融合率和缩短患者卧床时间.     

关节镜监视下治疗胫骨平台骨折

2004—2006年，我院采用关节镜监视和定位治疗胫骨平台骨折，获得了良好的效果。     

跟骨骨折治疗方法的疗效观察

目的比较跟骨骨折不同治疗方法的效果。方法88例96足跟骨骨折分成三组,分别应用撬拨复位石膏外固定、切开复位钢板内固定、可调节跟骨骨折外固定器治疗,术后从Bhler角的恢复、主观症状、并发症三个方面进行比较分析。结果可调节跟骨骨折外固定组在恢复Bhler角、术后主观症状改善、减少并发症方面优于撬拨复位石膏外固定组及切开复位内固定组。结论可调式跟骨骨折外固定器治疗跟骨骨折疗效优于撬拨组和内固定组。     

Guidelines for external fixation frame rigidity and stresses

Using results from FEM analyses and experiments as references, analytical methods are applied to develop simple approximate formulas to relate frame rigidity, maximal pin stresses, and peak pin-bone stresses in external fracture fixation (EFF) configurations in axial loading to the most important frame, pin, and bone parameters. It is found that, in a realistic range, the parameters can be adapted to vary the frame rigidity from about 13 N/mm to 17,000 N/mm, thereby reducing the maximal stresses in the pins and at the pin-bone interface by a factor of 140. In particular, when compromises have to be established in the frame characteristics in order to ensure a flexible configuration and limit the stress values at the same time, the formulas presented can provide useful guidelines. The side-bar separation and the pin modulus, in particular, can be adapted to decrease the rigidity, while only moderately increasing the stresses, thereby reducing changes for pin failure, pin-bone loosening, and pin-tract infection. A nomogram is presented for a quick reference to estimated relations between frame characteristics, rigidity, and stresses. It is believed that this material may be of use in EFF design and applications in clinical and animal experimental trials.     

前踝骨折诊治分析5例

踝部骨折是最常见的关节内骨折,约占全身骨折的3.9%[1]。自1998年4月至2004年3月收治单纯前踝骨折5例,现报告如下。1临床资料本组5例,均为男性;年龄18～24岁;左侧3例,右侧2例。受伤至住院时间为2h～1d,均为训练时从高处跳下垂直暴力所致。按Lauge-Hansen分类系统踝关节骨折分为     

胸椎椎弓根根外固定螺钉拔出力的实验研究

目的:比较两种胸椎椎弓根根外固定方法与经椎弓根固定方法的螺钉拔出强度,评价胸椎椎弓根根外固定的生物力学效果。方法:新鲜胸椎标本4具,共32个肋骨-椎骨序列,根据螺钉固定方法不同分为3组,A组采用经椎弓根固定,B组采用经横突-椎体固定,C组采用经改良肋横突法固定。根据所用螺钉规格不同将其分为4种不同测试条件:D1,螺钉直径5.5mm,长度40mm;D2,螺钉直径5.5mm,长度45mm;D3,螺钉直径6.5mm,长度45mm;D4,螺钉直径6.5mm,长度50mm。测试3种固定方法下的螺钉拔出力,并做统计学分析对比。结果:D1条件下A组拔出力为787.0±119.3N,B组为706.2±109.4N,C组为616.1±82.3N,3组间比较有显著性差异(P<0.01);D2条件下A组拔出力为862.3±128.7N,B组为811.4±113.6N,C组为655.1±92.2N,A、B组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05),A、B组与C组比较有显著性差异(P<0.01);D3条件下,A组拔出力为855.3±117.1N,B组为938.0±131.5N,C组为861.3±117.8N,A、C组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05),A、C组与B组比较有显著性差异(P<0.01);D4条件下A组拔出力为864.3±120.9N,B组为959.6±135.2N,C组为941.2±115.4N,A组与B、C组比较均有显著性差异(P<0.01),B、C组间比较无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:使用直径6.5mm、长度45～50mm的螺钉固定时,胸椎椎弓根根外固定螺钉拔出力优于椎弓根固定,有较好的生物力学效果。     

腰椎后路非融合固定系统的临床应用

复习腰椎后路非融合固定系统的设计原理、临床应用及治疗效果等相关文献,与传统的脊柱融合术相比,应用非融合系统可获得很好的疗效,并可以减少邻近节段退变的发生率。     

高龄股骨转子间骨折两种治疗方法的临床观察

目的:探讨手术治疗高龄股骨转子间骨折的安全性、合理性。方法:股骨转子间骨折患者65例,其中采用动力髋螺钉(DHS)治疗32例,男14例,女18例;年龄65~79岁,平均(70.6±2.3)岁;EvansⅠ型2例,Ⅱ型7例,Ⅲ型15例,Ⅳ型8例。采用单边外固定支架治疗33例,男14例,女19例;年龄68~90岁,平均(74.2±3.8)岁;EvansⅠ型3例,Ⅱ型15例,Ⅲ型11例,Ⅳ型1例,Ⅴ型3例。临床观察包括术中出血量、手术时间、骨折愈合时间、术后并发症及髋部运动功能等。结果:所有病例均获随访,时间1~34个月,平均19个月。两组手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症发生率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。平均愈合时间DHS组为(13.0±2.7)周,外固定支架组为(12.3±3.0)周,差异无统计学意义。Sanders髋关节功能评价:DHS组优19例,良6例,可3例,差2例;外固定支架组优12例,良8例,可8例,差5例。两组优良率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:围手术期外固定支架组较DHS组安全简便,术后疗效DHS组优于外固定支架组。     

经肘外侧入路治疗Gartland Ⅲ型肱骨髁上骨折

1995年1月～2006年6月，我院采用肘外侧纵形切口、交叉克氏针内固定治疗Gartlandm型肱骨髁上骨折96例，取得较好效果。