摘要
[目的]比较微创全髋关节置换术与传统全髋关节置换术的临床疗效。[方法]2008年1月～2010年1月在本院行单侧全髋关节置换术的156例患者随机分为观察组和对照组,两组患者均接受全麻或硬膜外麻醉后,对照组患者接受传统标准后外侧入路全髋关节置换术,观察组患者接受前外侧入路微创全髋关节置换术。比较两组患者手术情况、住院时间、Harris评分和术后并发症。[结果]观察组患者的切口长度、术中失血量、术后引流量和住院时间较对照组显著减少(P<0.01),但是手术时间较对照组延长(P<0.05);观察组患者在术后3、6个月、1年时Harris评分较对照组显著升高(P<0.01),但是术后2年时两组患者Harris评分差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组患者术后并发症差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。[结论]前外侧入路微创全髋关节置换术具有减少术后损伤、缩短住院时间、加快术后髋关节功能恢复的优势,值得临床推荐。
[ Objective] To compare the clinical efficacy of total hip arthroplasty of minimally invasion and traditional invasion. [ Method] Total 156 cases with hemi total hip arthroplasty were randomly divided into observaion group and control group, who visited our hospital in January 2008 -Januray 2010. After general or epidural anesthesia, cases in control group received total hip arthroplasty of minimally invasion, and cases in observation group received traditional total hip arthroplasty. The condition of operation, hospital stay, Harrris score and postoperative complications were compared in both groups. [ Result] Length of cut, blood loss in operation, drainage volume after operation, and hospital stay in observation group decreased significantly compared with those in control group（P 〈 0.01 ）, and duration of operation significantly increased compared with that in control group（ P 〈0.05）. The Harris score in observation group increased significantly at 34 ,6th and 12th month after operation（P 〈0.01 ） ,but the Harris score in both group were not significantly different at 24^th month（P 〉0.05）. The postoperative complications in both groups were not significantly different （P 〉 0.05 ）. [ Conclusion ] Minimally invasive THA with anterolateral incision has the advantages of less soft postoperative damage, less hospital stay and quick recovery of hip joint, which is worthy to be recommended in clinics.
出处
《中国矫形外科杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2013年第12期1173-1176,共4页
Orthopedic Journal of China
关键词
全髋关节置换术
微创
临床疗效
total hip arthroplasty, minimally invasive, clinical efficacy
