PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study is to evaluate comparative biomechanical fixation provided with the BDSF method with the conventional CC screw fixation for treatment of femoral neck fractures with three parallel cannulated screws.
UNASSIGNED: This is a prospective cohort study. There were two teams of surgeons out of which one team operated the patients with BDSF technique and second with conventional CC screw fixation technique; thus, the patients were randomly distributed into two groups. Patients were included in the study as per the following inclusion and exclusion criteria.
UNASSIGNED: Union was achieved in 15 (83.33%) patients managed by conventional CC screw technique, while union was achieved in 11 (91.67%) patients managed by BDSF technique in the present study. The average Harris hip score in present study was 90 score in patients managed by BDSF technique, while the average Harris hip score in present study was 80 score in patients managed by BDSF technique.
UNASSIGNED: Both BDSF and conventional CC screw fixation are good fixation methods for fracture neck of femur. But functional outcome and fracture union rates are better with BDSF Technique. Although, there are some minor problems noted in BDSF technique such as outer cortical fracture at the entry point of beam screw and opening up of anterior cortex of oblique fracture patterns. Thus, BDSF method provides reliable fixation in which early mobilization and partial weight bearing of the patient may be allowed.
UNASSIGNED: This is a prospective cohort study. There were two teams of surgeons out of which one team operated the patients with BDSF technique and second with conventional CC screw fixation technique; thus, the patients were randomly distributed into two groups. Patients were included in the study as per the following inclusion and exclusion criteria.
UNASSIGNED: Union was achieved in 15 (83.33%) patients managed by conventional CC screw technique, while union was achieved in 11 (91.67%) patients managed by BDSF technique in the present study. The average Harris hip score in present study was 90 score in patients managed by BDSF technique, while the average Harris hip score in present study was 80 score in patients managed by BDSF technique.
UNASSIGNED: Both BDSF and conventional CC screw fixation are good fixation methods for fracture neck of femur. But functional outcome and fracture union rates are better with BDSF Technique. Although, there are some minor problems noted in BDSF technique such as outer cortical fracture at the entry point of beam screw and opening up of anterior cortex of oblique fracture patterns. Thus, BDSF method provides reliable fixation in which early mobilization and partial weight bearing of the patient may be allowed.
摘要：
■这项研究的目的是评估BDSF方法与常规CC螺钉固定的比较生物力学固定，用于使用三个平行空心螺钉治疗股骨颈骨折。
■这是一项前瞻性队列研究。有两个外科医生团队，其中一个团队使用BDSF技术对患者进行手术，第二个团队使用传统的CC螺钉固定技术进行手术；因此，将患者随机分为两组。根据以下纳入和排除标准将患者纳入研究。
■在通过常规CC螺钉技术管理的15名（83.33％）患者中实现了Union，而在本研究中，通过BDSF技术管理的11例患者（91.67％）实现了愈合。在本研究中，通过BDSF技术管理的患者的平均Harris髋关节评分为90分，而本研究中通过BDSF技术管理的患者的平均Harris髋关节评分为80分。
■BDSF和常规CC螺钉固定都是股骨颈骨折的良好固定方法。但是BDSF技术的功能结局和骨折愈合率更好。虽然,BDSF技术中注意到一些小问题，例如梁螺钉入口处的外皮质骨折和斜向骨折类型的前皮质开放。因此，BDSF方法提供了可靠的固定，其中可以允许患者的早期活动和部分负重。
■这是一项前瞻性队列研究。有两个外科医生团队，其中一个团队使用BDSF技术对患者进行手术，第二个团队使用传统的CC螺钉固定技术进行手术；因此，将患者随机分为两组。根据以下纳入和排除标准将患者纳入研究。
■在通过常规CC螺钉技术管理的15名（83.33％）患者中实现了Union，而在本研究中，通过BDSF技术管理的11例患者（91.67％）实现了愈合。在本研究中，通过BDSF技术管理的患者的平均Harris髋关节评分为90分，而本研究中通过BDSF技术管理的患者的平均Harris髋关节评分为80分。
■BDSF和常规CC螺钉固定都是股骨颈骨折的良好固定方法。但是BDSF技术的功能结局和骨折愈合率更好。虽然,BDSF技术中注意到一些小问题，例如梁螺钉入口处的外皮质骨折和斜向骨折类型的前皮质开放。因此，BDSF方法提供了可靠的固定，其中可以允许患者的早期活动和部分负重。
