临床小儿外科杂志  2019, Vol. 18 Issue (2): 124-129
0
PDF  
带锁髓内钉和锁定钢板治疗青少年股骨干骨折的对比研究
黄立明1 , 汪文涛2 , 潘源城2 , 黄殿华2 , 卢育南2 , 陈顺有2     
1. 三明市第二医院骨科(福建省三明市,366000);
2. 福州市第二医院小儿骨科(福建省福州市,350007)
摘要目的 目的 比较经大转子外侧进带锁髓内钉和锁定钢板治疗青少年股骨干骨折的临床疗效。方法 回顾性分析2014年5月至2016年5月由三明市第二医院和福州市第二医院收治的29例青少年股骨干骨折患儿的临床资料。根据治疗方法的不同分为带锁髓内钉组(n=16)和钢板组(n=13)。记录并比较两组患儿的切口长度、出血量、早期下地负重时间和临床愈合时间。末次随访时,测量并比较双侧的颈干角及冠状位股骨干轴线成角。采用NAHS评分法评估两组患儿患侧的髋关节功能。结果 髓内钉组的切口长度为(5.27±0.39)cm,钢板组(7.66±0.41)cm,差异有统计学意义(t=2.287,P=0.011);髓内钉组出血量和早期下地负重时间分别为(131.88±6.43)mL和(52.81±3.37) d,钢板组分别为(145.25±7.79)mL和(64.35±3.42) d,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。髓内钉组达到临床愈合的时间为(60.25±3.86) d,钢板组为(70.63±8.87)d,差异有统计学意义(t=2.594,P=0.028)。髓内钉组患侧颈干角、冠状位股骨干轴线成角分别为(150.11±1.62)°和(178.88±0.49)°,健侧分别为(150.20±1.01)°和(178.84±0.34)°,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。钢板组患侧颈干角、冠状位股骨干轴线成角分别为(150.37±1.11)°和(178.88±1.09)°,健侧为(149.98±0.98)°和(179.12±0.42)°,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。髓内钉组和钢板组髋关节的NAHS评分分别为(94.19±2.37)分和(94.46±2.22)分,差异无统计学意义(t=0.317,P=0.748)。末次随访时29例患儿均达到骨性愈合。钢板组有1例出现螺钉松动并延迟愈合,1例出现轻微股骨远端外翻畸形。结论 相对于锁定钢板,带锁髓内钉治疗青少年股骨干骨折具有切口小,出血量少,愈合快,并发症少等优点。
关键词带锁髓内钉; 锁定钢板; 青少年; 股骨干骨折
Comparison of interlocking intramedullary nail versus locking plate fixation in juvenile femoral shaft fractures
Huang Liming1 , Wang Wentao2 , Pan Yuancheng2 , Huang Dianhua2 , Lu Yunan2 , Chen Shunyou2     
1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Second Municipal Hospital, Sanming 366000, China;
2. Department of Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery, Second Municipal Hospital, Xiamen University, Fuzhou 350007, China
Abstract: Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of interlocking intramedullary nail fixation using a lateral trochanteric entry point versus locking plate fixation in the treatment for juvenile femoral shaft fracture. Methods For this retrospective comparative study, a total of 29 inpatients of Sanming Second Municipal Hospital or Fuzhou Second Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University undergoing interlocking intramedullary nail fixation using a lateral trochanteric entry point or locking plate fixation because of juvenile femoral shaft fracture were recruited between May 2014 and May 2016.And the interventions included intramedullary nail group (n=16) and plate group (n=13) according to treatment methods.Length of incision, volume of blood loss, time of weight-bearing and time of fracture healing were compared between two groups.At the final visit, neck-shaft angle and femoral shaft axis angulation in frontal plane were measured radiologically and compared to uninjured side.Also non-arthritic hip score (NAHS) was utilized for evaluating the hip joint function of injured side.The differences were compared between two groups. Results The lengths of incision of both groups were (5.27±0.39) and (7.66±0.41) cm respectively and the differences were not statistically significant (t=0.972, P=0.011); volume of blood loss and time of weight-bearing were (131.88±6.43) mL and (52.81±3.37) days in intramedullary nail group versus (145.25±7.79)mL and(64.35±3.42)days in another group respectively.Statistically significant differences existed between two groups (P < 0.05).Time of fracture healing of both groups were (60.25±3.86) and (70.63±8.87)days respectively.And the differences were not statistically significant (t=0.886, P=0.028).In intramedullary nail group, neck-shaft angle and femoral shaft axis angulation in frontal plane of injured side were (150.11±1.62)° and (178.88±0.49)° while uninjured side (150.20±1.01)° and (178.84±0.34)° respectively.And the differences between two sides were not statistically significant (P>0.05).In plate group, neck-shaft angle and femoral shaft axis angulation in frontal plane of injured side were (150.37±1.11)°and (178.88±1.09)°while uninjured side (149.98±0.98)°and (179.12±0.42)°respectively.And the differences between two sides were not statistically significant (P>0.05).The NAHS score of two groups were (94.19±2.37) and (94.46±2.22) respectively and the differences were not statistically significant (t=0.317, P=0.748).All patients achieved bony union at the final follow-up.One patient in plate group had screw migration and delayed union while another patient in plate group had slight valgus deformity of distal femur. Conclusion Ideal for juvenile femoral shaft fracture, interlocking intramedullary nail fixation yields better outcomes than locking plate.It has the advantages of minimal blood loss, faster healing and fewer complications.
Key words: Adolescent Interlocking Intramedullary Nail; Locking Plate; Adolescent; Femoral Shaft Fracture

青少年股骨干骨折并不常见,仅占儿童骨折的1.6%,发病率约为19/10万,常为高能量损伤,如车祸伤、运动伤、坠落伤等,治疗方式因患儿的年龄、体重、骨折类型而异[1, 2]。移位明显的青少年股骨干骨折往往需要手术治疗,而提供坚强内固定和减少术后并发症是治疗的关键。目前关于手术治疗的内固定物选择仍存在争议。常见内固定物有带锁髓内钉和锁定钢板等。带锁髓内钉在年龄≥11岁且体重≥49 kg的患儿中较为推崇,但近年来有文献报道,经梨状窝或大转子尖进带锁髓内钉治疗常伴有股骨头坏死、髋外翻畸形和股骨颈狭窄等并发症[3, 4]。国内尚未见经大转子外侧进带锁髓内钉治疗青少年股骨干骨折的文献报道。锁定钢板治疗可提供坚强内固定,尤其适用于不稳定型股骨干骨折,但可出现股骨远端外翻畸形、内固定物失效、骨折不愈合等并发症[5]。本研究回顾性分析经大转子外侧进带锁髓内钉与锁定钢板治疗青少年股骨干骨折的临床疗效。

材料与方法 一、研究对象

本研究收集2014年5月至2016年5月由三明市第二医院和福州市第二医院收治的38例青少年股骨干骨折患儿作为研究对象。纳入标准:①受伤年龄为11~16岁;②体重为49.0~59.0 kg;③BMI为22.0~27.0;④骨折线位置位于小转子下3 cm至股骨远端上5 cm处;⑤骨折类型为AO分型中的A型、B型和C型;⑥手术时机在受伤后7 d以内;⑦术后随访2年以上,且从伤后至达到骨性愈合期间临床和影像资料完整者。排除标准:①开放性骨折(n=2);②病理性骨折(n=1);③发生于神经肌肉功能障碍(n=1)、成骨不全(n=2)以及其它任何容易发生骨折或影响骨折愈合过程的系统性病变(n=3)等。本研究最终纳入29例青少年股骨干骨折患儿,根据治疗方法的不同分为带锁髓内钉组(n=16)和钢板组(n=13)。

二、临床资料

29例中10例来自于三明市第二医院,19例来自福州市第二医院;男童20例,女童9例,受伤年龄平均为(12.62±1.15)岁,BMI平均为(23.85±0.25)。所有患儿为高能量损伤,其中车祸伤10例,运动伤8例,坠落伤11例;骨折AO分型为A型18例,B型7例,C型4例。依据治疗方式的不同将29例患儿分为髓内钉组16例(闭合复位13例,小切口辅助复位3例)和钢板组13例。其中,髓内钉组有3例来自三明市第二医院,13例来自福州市第二医院;钢板组有7例来自三明市第二医院,6例来自福州市第二医院。两组患儿在年龄、性别、BMI、损伤类型、骨折AO分型方面的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),具体见表 1

表 1 髓内钉组和钢板组患儿一般资料的比较 Table 1 Inter-group comparison of general profiles
三、治疗方法

1.髓内钉组:以大转子近端为中心,取长约5 cm的切口,切开臀大肌表面的皮下脂肪和筋膜,分离臀中肌的肌纤维直到股骨近端,暴露股骨大转子,以小粗隆20 mm下为基准,大粗隆水平外偏12°为进针点穿入导针,以软性髓腔扩大器逐步扩大髓腔,并植入专家级青少年股骨外侧髓内钉,C臂辅助透视下达到满意复位后,利用导航系统,借助瞄准臂,依次植入锁定螺钉及尾帽(对于难以闭合复位的骨折,需在骨折端外侧取长约1 cm的小切口以辅助复位),冲洗手术视野,并逐层缝合伤口。

2.钢板组:以骨折端为中心取长约8 cm的切口,有限纵行切开大腿阔筋膜层,在阔筋膜下暴露股外侧肌,显露外侧肌间隔,沿外侧肌间隔和股外侧肌的平面继续分离直到股骨粗线,暴露股骨外侧端,清理骨折端的血肿与软组织,借助复位器复位,植入锁定钢板(锁定钢板远端距股骨远端骨骺距离尽量>20 mm)与螺钉(钢板两端处的螺钉采用小切口植入法),C臂辅助透视下达到满意复位后,冲洗手术视野,并逐层缝合伤口。

两组患儿均复位满意。髓内钉组典型病例见图 1,钢板组典型病例见图 2

Download:
图 1 青少年股骨干骨折患儿行切开复位带锁髓内钉内固定术前、术后X线片     A:术前正位X线片显示右股骨中段骨折;B:术后正位X线片显示骨折复位良好;C:术后6个月正位X线片未见明显并发症;D:术后12个月正位X线片未见明显并发症 Fig. 1 A 12-year-old girl with right femoral shaft fracture due to a car accident underwent open reduction plus intramedullary nailing fixation

Download:
图 2 青少年股骨干骨折患儿行切开复位锁定钢板内固定术前、术后X线片     A:术前正位X线片显示左股骨中段骨折;B:术后正位X线片显示骨折复位良好;C:术后6个月正位X线片未见明显并发症;D:术后10个月正位X线片未见明显并发症 Fig. 2 A 11-year-old boy with left femoral shaft fracture due to a car accident underwent open reduction plus locking plate fixation
四、术后处理及随访

术后每2 d伤口换药1次。所有患儿从术后第2天起至下地负重期间,行不负重功能锻炼,包括早期的髋膝关节活动锻炼、后期的不负重行走锻炼等。术后随访采用标准化调查评估和影像学分析法,每个月复查X线片,评估骨痂生长情况和术后并发症。末次随访时,所有患儿行双下肢正位X线片检查。

五、观察项目及评估方法。

记录并比较两组患儿的切口长度和出血量。影像资料显示骨折线周围已有较多骨痂生成时,嘱患者开始部分负重活动行走,并视骨折愈合程度,逐步过渡到完全负重。影像资料显示骨折线模糊,有连续性骨痂通过骨折线时,提示骨折已达到临床愈合。记录并比较两组患儿早期下地负重时间和骨折临床愈合时间。末次随访时,影像学上观察股骨头形状和股骨头密度,评估是否出现股骨头坏死,并应用PACS影像学处理软件测量正位X线片上双侧颈干角和冠状位股骨干轴线成角。患侧冠状位股骨干轴线成角的测量以骨折线为界,健侧以患侧骨折线相对应的位置为界,分别做近端和远端股骨干的纵轴线,两条纵轴线的夹角即为冠状位股骨干轴线成角(图 3)。记录并比较双侧颈干角和冠状位股骨干轴线成角。根据测量结果,评估患儿是否出现髋外翻畸形或股骨远端外翻畸形等并发症。颈干角越大和轴线成角越小分别提示髋外翻畸形和股骨远端外翻畸形越严重。末次随访采用NAHS(Non-Arthritic Hip)评分评估患儿的髋关节功能,100分提示髋关节功能正常,分值越高提示功能越好[6, 7]

Download:
图 3 冠状位股骨干轴线成角测量方法示意图     以骨折线为界,红线为股骨干近端轴线,黑色为股骨干远端轴线,红线与黑线夹角即为冠状位股骨干轴线成角 Fig. 3 Method of measuring femoral shaft angulation in frontal plane Based upon fracture line, red line and black line were the axes of proximal and distal femoral shafts respectively.The angle of two lines was femoral shaft angulation in frontal plane
六、统计学处理

采用SPSS 20.0统计学软件进行数据处理与分析,对于年龄、BMI、切口长度、出血量、早期下地负重时间、临床愈合时间、颈干角、冠状位股骨干轴线成角和NAHS评分等计量资料采用均数±标准差(x±s)表示,两组间比较采用独立样本t检验。对于不同侧别双侧颈干角和冠状位股骨干轴线成角的比较采用配对样本t检验。对于性别、损伤类型和骨折AO分型等计数资料采用频数分析,两组间比较采用χ2检验。以α=0.05为检验水准,P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。

结  果

髓内钉组的切口长度为(5.27±0.39)cm,钢板组(7.66±0.41)cm,差异有统计学意义(t=2.287,P=0.011);髓内钉组出血量和早期下地负重时间分别为(131.88±6.43)mL和(52.81±3.37) d,钢板组分别为(145.25±7.79)mL和(64.35±3.42) d,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。

末次随访时29例患儿均达到骨性愈合。髓内钉组达到临床愈合的时间为(60.25±3.86) d,钢板组为(70.63±8.87)d,差异有统计学意义(t=2.594,P=0.028)。髓内钉组患侧颈干角、冠状位股骨干轴线成角分别为(150.11±1.62)°和(178.88±0.49)°,健侧分别为(150.20±1.01)°和(178.84±0.34)°,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。钢板组患侧颈干角、冠状位股骨干轴线成角分别为(150.37±1.11)°和(178.88±1.09)°,健侧为(149.98±0.98)°和(179.12±0.42)°,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。髓内钉组和钢板组髋关节的NAHS评分为(94.19±2.37)分和(94.46±2.22)分,差异无统计学意义(t=0.317,P=0.748),具体见表 2表 3

表 2 髓内钉组和钢板组患儿术中、术后相关指标比较 Table 2 Inter-group comparison of intra-and post-operative relevant indices

表 3 髓内钉组和钢板组患儿双侧颈干角和冠状位股骨干轴线成角比较 Table 3 Comparisons of neck-shaft angle and femoral shaft axis angulation at both sides in frontal plane in two groups

所有患儿获得随访,随访23~48个月,平均(32.16±4.24)个月。随访过程中,两组患儿均未出现伤口感染等现象;钢板组有1例出现螺钉松动并骨折延迟愈合,1例出现约4°的轻微股骨远端外翻畸形;髓内钉组未见明显并发症。所有患儿均行早期功能锻炼,末次随访时均达到骨性愈合,NAHS评分均较高,未见明显的髋膝关节活动受限。评估两组患儿的影像学资料,均未出现患侧股骨头坏死和髋外翻畸形等并发症。

讨  论

青少年股骨干骨折发病率低,多为高能量损伤,往往需要手术治疗[8, 9]。由于青少年自身特点和内固定物选择不合适等原因,容易产生并发症。锁定钢板治疗青少年股骨干骨折可获得满意疗效,但其伴有的并发症处理起来较为棘手[5]。近年来,带锁髓内钉治疗大龄儿童股骨干骨折备受推崇,但有研究表明,髓内钉的进针点与并发症的发生率密切相关[3, 4]。国内尚未见有关比较锁定钢板和经大转子外侧进带锁髓内钉治疗青少年股骨干骨折疗效的文献[10-12]。本研究旨在比较两种固定方式的临床疗效,为青少年股骨干骨折的治疗方案选择提供参考。

锁定钢板治疗青少年股骨干骨折是目前临床上常用的方法,但可出现术口瘢痕大、骨折愈合延迟或不愈合、内固定物失效、股骨远端外翻畸形、双下肢不等长等并发症[13, 14]。本研究发现,与髓内钉组相比,钢板组的患儿切口长度更长,术中出血量更多,更容易出现内固定物失效和骨折愈合延迟等并发症,该结果与Carid等[13]的研究结果相似。我们认为锁定钢板治疗容易造成内固定物失效可能与钢板固定属于偏心固定,易出现应力集中及术后过早下地负重有关[15]。另外,钢板组患儿所需愈合时间更长,可能与钢板固定术中剥离了骨膜及破坏了骨折端周围软组织血运有关;除此以外,钢板固定不允许早期下地负重,缺少较早的力学刺激也会造成愈合时间延长。

股骨远端外翻畸形是使用锁定钢板治疗的并发症之一。本研究结果显示,钢板组有1例出现轻微的股骨远端外翻畸形,这可能与钢板远端距股骨远端骨骺的距离过短、骨折线位置较低和未及时取出内固定物有关[16, 17]。股骨外侧植入钢板可破坏股骨外侧骨膜的血运,阻碍股骨外侧骨质的生长,继而出现股骨远端外翻畸形。另外,Heyworth等[16]研究发现锁定钢板远端距股骨远端骨骺的距离 < 20 mm的患儿发生股骨远端外翻畸形的风险明显高于距离≥20 mm的患儿。Ezzat等[17]研究认为骨折达到骨性愈合后,尽早取出钢板可降低发生股骨远端外翻畸形的风险。因此,为了避免股骨远端外翻畸形的出现,锁定钢板的植入应尽量远离股骨远端骨骺,且在骨折达到骨性愈合后尽早取出内固定物。

相对于锁定钢板,本研究发现带锁髓内钉治疗具有骨折愈合时间短、骨折愈合率高及内固定物失效率低等优势,这可能与带锁髓内钉固定属于髓内固定有关,该方式不仅可以提供坚强固定,术后还可允许患儿早期负重锻炼,有效促进骨折愈合[3]。有文献报道,髓内固定治疗股骨干骨折的骨折延迟愈合或不愈合率及内固定物失效率均低于钢板固定治疗的患儿[18, 19]。本研究结果也证实了这一点。目前,带锁髓内钉治疗的争议主要集中在并发症上,其常见并发症包括股骨头坏死、髋外翻畸形、股骨颈狭窄和影响股骨近端骨骺发育等。我们前期研究发现,使用肱骨带锁髓内钉治疗青少年股骨干骨折不会影响股骨近端骨骺发育,治疗上可获得满意疗效[20]。另外,髓内钉进针点与并发症发生率密切相关[21]。Paredes等[22]认为,以股骨大转子外侧为进针点可明显减少并发症的发生,因为旋股内侧动脉作为股骨头血供的最重要分支,经梨状窝或大转子尖进钉易损伤该动脉。同时,股骨颈外侧存在残余骺板,伤及该骺板易引起髋外翻畸形和股骨颈狭窄等并发症,经大转子外侧进钉则可避免损伤该骺板[23]。本研究中,髓内钉组患儿术后均未出现上述并发症,这可能与采用以大转子外侧为进针点以及随访时间短有关。因此,经大转子外侧进带锁髓内钉治疗可有效避免对股骨头血运和股骨颈外侧残余骺板造成影响,从而减少相应并发症的发生。当然,选择带锁髓内钉治疗青少年股骨干骨折同样存在挑战性,因为髓内钉弧度的设计和术者经验水平与治疗效果密切相关。

综上所述,经大转子外侧进青少年型带锁髓内钉避免了经梨状窝或大转子尖进钉的缺点,治疗青少年股骨干骨折可获得满意疗效。相对于锁定钢板,青少年型带锁髓内钉治疗具有切口长度更小、出血量更少、骨折愈合更快、术后更早下地负重及并发症更少的优势。本研究仍存在以下局限性:①样本量较小;②随访时间较短,未能随访至患儿骨骺闭合;③颈干角及冠状位股骨干轴线成角测量可能存在误差;④带锁髓内钉及锁定钢板是否会对股骨远近端骨骺发育造成影响,仍有待进一步研究。

参考文献
1
Bridgman S, Wilson R. Epidemiology of femoral fractures in children in the West Midlands region of England 1991 to 2001[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2004, 86(8): 1152-1157.
2
Kocher MS, Sink EL, Blasier RD, et al. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guideline on treatment of pediatric diaphyseal femur fracture[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2010, 92(8): 1790-1792. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.J.00137.
3
Gordon JE, Mehlman CT. The Community Orthopaedic Surgeon Taking Trauma Call:Pediatric Femoral Shaft Fracture Pearls and Pitfalls[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2017, 31(6): S16-S21. DOI:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001016.
4
Martus JE. Rigid intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures for patients age 12 and younger:indications and technique[J]. J Pediatr Orthop, 2016, 36(1): S35-S40. DOI:10.1097/BPO.0000000000000758.
5
Jarmuzek T, Mendel T, Schenk P, et al. The complicated course of a femoral shaft fracture in childhood[J]. Unfallchirurg, 2017, 120(5): 432-436. DOI:10.1007/s00113-016-0304-z.
6
Christensen CP, Althausen PL, Mittleman MA, et al. The nonarthritic hip score:reliable and validated[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2003(406): 75-83. DOI:10.1097/01.blo.0000043047.84315.4b.
7
Jr CS, Kim EJ, Koehler DM, et al. Twenty-year experience with rigid intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures in skeletally immature patients[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2014, 96(13): 1080-1089. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.M.01128.
8
Hubbard EW, Riccio AI. Pediatric Orthopedic Trauma:An Evidence-Based Approach[J]. Orthop Clin North Am, 2018, 49(2): 195-210. DOI:10.1016/j.ocl.2017.11.008.
9
Naranje SM, Stewart MG, Kelly DM, et al. Changes in the Treatment of Pediatric Femoral Fractures:15-Year Trends From United States Kids'Inpatient Database (KID)1997 to 2012[J]. J Pediatr Orthop, 2016, 36(7): e81-e85. DOI:10.1097/BPO.0000000000000633.
10
Jevsevar DS, Shea KG, Murray JN, et al. AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline on the Treatment of Pediatric Diaphyseal Femur Fractures[J]. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2015, 23(12): e101. DOI:10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00523.
11
Rapp M, Kraus R, Illing P, et al. Treatment of femoral shaft fractures in children and adolescents ≥50 kg:a retrospective multicenter trial[J]. Unfallchirurg, 2018, 121(1): 47-57. DOI:10.1007/s00113-017-0313-6.
12
Hampton M, Maripuri N, Khandekar S, et al. Locked rigid antegrade intramedullary nailing of adolescent femoral fractures using a lateral trochanteric entry point[J]. Acta Orthop Belg, 2017, 82(4): 829-853.
13
Caird MS, Mueller KA, Puryear A, et al. Compression plating of pediatric femoral shaft fractures[J]. J Pediatr Orthop, 2003, 23(4): 448-452.
14
Fyodorov I, Sturm PF, Jr RW. Compression-plate fixation of femoral shaft fractures in children aged 8 to 12 years[J]. J Pediatr Orthop, 1999, 19(5): 578-581.
15
Rybicki EF, Simonen FA, Jr WE. On the mathematical analysis of stress in the human femur[J]. J Biomech, 1972, 5(2): 203-215. DOI:10.1016/0021-9290(72)90056-5.
16
Heyworth BE, Hedequist DJ, Nasreddine AY, et al. Distal femoral valgus deformity following plate fixation of pediatric femoral shaft fractures[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2013, 95(6): 526-533. DOI:10.2106/JBJS.K.01190.
17
Ezzat A, Iobst C. Extreme femoral valgus and patella dislocation following lateral plate fixation of a pediatric femur fracture[J]. J Pediatr Orthop B, 2016, 25(4): 381-384. DOI:10.1097/BPB.0000000000000289.
18
Neumann MV, Südkamp NP, Strohm PC. Management of femoral shaft fractures[J]. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech, 2015, 82(1): 22-32.
19
Böstman O, Varjonen L, Vainionpää S, et al. Incidence of local complications after intramedullary nailing and after plate fixation of femoral shaft fractures[J]. J Trauma, 1989, 29(5): 639-645. DOI:10.1097/00005373-198905000-00019.
20
陈顺有, 潘源城, 林然, 等. 肱骨交锁髓内钉治疗青少年股骨干骨折对股骨近端发育的影响[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2016, 24(22): 2045-2048. DOI:10.3977/j.issn.1005-8478.2016.22.07.
Chen SY, Pan YC, Lin R, et al. Effect of humeral interlocking intramedullary nail on growth of proximal femur after treatment of femoral shaft fracture in adolescents[J]. Orthopedic J Chin, 2016, 24(22): 2045-2048. DOI:10.3977/j.issn.1005-8478.2016.22.07.
21
Paredes V, Franco A, Soto T, et al. A systematic review of rigid, locked, intramedullary nail insertion sites and avascular necrosis of the femoral head in the skeletally immature[J]. J Pediatr Orthop, 2011, 31(4): 377-380. DOI:10.1097/BPO.0b013e3182172613.
22
Trueta J, Harrison MH. The normal vascular anatomy of the femoral head in adult man[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1953, 35-B(3): 442-461. DOI:10.1302/0301-620X.35B3.442.
23
Siffert RS. Patterns of deformity of the developing hip[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1981(160): 14-29.