BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2020
Dynamic compression locking system versus multiple cannulated compression screw for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a comparative study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shu Dong-Ping, Xiao Ya-Ping, Bei Ming-Jian, Ji Tao, Peng Yong-Jun, Ma Bing, Li Shao-Gang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Femoral neck fractures are one of the problems in clinical treatment. The prognosis is uncertain. Currently, No internal fixation method is superior to other internal fixation methods in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. Therefore, the internal fixation system needs to be further explored. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of femoral neck dynamic compression locking system (DCLS) and multiple cannulated compression screws(MCCS) in the treatment of femoral neck fractures.
METHODS: A prospective analysis of 54 cases of femoral neck fractures treated with either a DCLS (n = 28) or MCCS (n = 26) was conducted between December 2015 and November 2017 in authors' hospitals. The perioperative and postoperative parameters of the two groups were recorded and evaluated.
RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were followed up for 24-47 months. The etiology was caused by a fall. There was no significant difference in follow-up time, operation time, incision length, surgical blood loss, the incidence of perioperative and postoperative healing complications, and mobility in the two groups (all P > 0.05). The Harris score, fracture healing time, femoral neck shortening, partial weight-bearing time and complete weight-bearing time were significantly better in the DCLS group than in the MCCS group (all P < 0.05). The fracture healing rate in the DCLS group was higher than that in the MCCS group.
CONCLUSIONS: The DCLS and MCCS might be equally effective in terms of operation time, incision length, surgical blood loss, the incidence of perioperative and postoperative healing complications, and mobility in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. However, the DCLS is superior to the MCCS in Harris score, fracture healing time, femoral neck shortening, weight-bearing time and fracture healing rate. So, DCLS deserves further study.
METHODS: A prospective analysis of 54 cases of femoral neck fractures treated with either a DCLS (n = 28) or MCCS (n = 26) was conducted between December 2015 and November 2017 in authors' hospitals. The perioperative and postoperative parameters of the two groups were recorded and evaluated.
RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were followed up for 24-47 months. The etiology was caused by a fall. There was no significant difference in follow-up time, operation time, incision length, surgical blood loss, the incidence of perioperative and postoperative healing complications, and mobility in the two groups (all P > 0.05). The Harris score, fracture healing time, femoral neck shortening, partial weight-bearing time and complete weight-bearing time were significantly better in the DCLS group than in the MCCS group (all P < 0.05). The fracture healing rate in the DCLS group was higher than that in the MCCS group.
CONCLUSIONS: The DCLS and MCCS might be equally effective in terms of operation time, incision length, surgical blood loss, the incidence of perioperative and postoperative healing complications, and mobility in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. However, the DCLS is superior to the MCCS in Harris score, fracture healing time, femoral neck shortening, weight-bearing time and fracture healing rate. So, DCLS deserves further study.