Abstract：Objective: To analyze the differences in curative effect and safety of hip replacement through superpath approach and traditional posterolateral approach on femoral neck fracture. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on the treatment data of 138 patients with femoral neck fracture who underwent hip replacement in the hospital from December 2017 to December 2019. According to different surgical approaches, patients given superpath approach and traditional posterolateral approach were included in study group (n=78) and control group (n=60), respectively. The surgical related conditions, postoperative curative effect, VAS score, postoperative leaving bed time, hospital stay, standing walking test and incidence of complications were compared between the two groups. Results: The surgical related conditions such as operation time, intraoperative blood loss and incision length in study group were significantly better than those in control group (P<0.05). There were significant differences in postoperative good rate between study group and control group (94.87% vs 73.33%) (P<0.05). At 48h after surgery, the postoperative recovery indexes such as drainage volume, leaving bed time, hospital stay, hospitalization cost and standing walking test in study group were better than those in control group (P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative complication in study group was significantly lower than that in control group (7.69% vs 36.67%). Conclusion: The hip replacement through superpath approach for treatment of femoral neck fracture can promote rapid recovery of patients, with significant curative effect and good safety.
曹良国. Superpath入路与传统后外侧入路髋关节置换术治疗股骨颈骨折的疗效及安全性分析[J]. 河北医学, 2021, 27(5): 814-819.
CAO Liangguo. Curative Effect and Safety of Hip Replacement Through Superpath Approach and Traditional Posterolateral Approach on Femoral Neck Fracture. HeBei Med, 2021, 27(5): 814-819.
[1] Sferopoulos N K.Subtrochanteric osteoid osteoma:a misdiagnosed case complicated by a hip fracture[J].Chinese Journal of Traumatology,2016,19(5):283~285. [2] Viceconti M,Lattanzi R,Antonietti B,et al.CT-based surgical planning software improves the accuracy of total hip replacement preoperative planning.[J].Medical Engineering&Physics,2016,25(5):371~377. [3] 聂兰英,禹宝庆,禹宝庆,等.微创SuperPath入路人工股骨头置换术治疗老年股骨颈骨折的近期疗效[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2016,18(11):938~944. [4] 《中国组织工程研究与临床康复》杂志社学术部.人工肩关节置换后:假体松动诊断的"金标准"及其若干影响因素[J].中国组织工程研究与临床康复,2010,14(13):2285~2286. [5] 关骅,陈学明.脊髓损伤ASIA神经功能分类标准(2000年修订)[J].中国脊柱脊髓杂志,2001,11(3):164. [6] Gautschi O P,Stienen M N,Corniola M V,et al.Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in the timed up and go test after surgery for lumbar degenerative disc disease.[J].Neurosurgery,2017,80(3):380~385. [7] 李奕标,蔡瑞歆,程培楷,等.经臀中肌前缘间隙入路和传统股骨外侧入路治疗股骨转子间骨折的临床应用[J].河北医药,2016,38(7):1018~1021. [8] 凌遵龙,周平辉,伏瑜.SuperPATH入路全髋关节置换术治疗高龄股骨颈骨折效果分析[J].中国医学前沿杂志(电子版),2020,12(5):66~70. [9] 李建,邱冰,甄东.SuperPATH入路与传统入路髋关节置换临床疗效的Meta分析[J].中国组织工程研究,2018,22(15):163~170. [10] 林绪超,姚晓东,徐皓,等.SuperPATH入路初次全髋关节置换术治疗髋部疾病的近期疗效分析[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2018,33(4):14~16. [11] 彭超,何智勇,王郑浩,等.SuperPATH微创入路人工全髋关节置换术加速康复的优化特点[J].四川医学,2020,41(8):829~834. [12] 贾小林,周明全,胡维,等.微创Supercap入路与后外侧入路半髋关节置换治疗高龄股骨颈骨折的早期疗效比较[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2016,30(11):1331~1337. [13] 黄钢勇,夏军,魏亦兵,等.Super PATH入路髋关节置换术治疗高龄老年股骨颈骨折短期临床疗效[J].国际骨科学杂志,2016,37(5):331~336.
2021, Vol. 27 
冀公网安备13080202000677号