论文部分内容阅读
目的:对比骨质疏松骨折与非骨质疏松骨折的临床特点和治疗方式,为骨折的临床诊治提供依据。方法:选取2010年12月至2013年12月在我院接受治疗的骨折患者186例。根据骨质疏松情况,将所选患者分为骨质疏松骨折组和非骨质疏松骨折组,每组各93例。分析并比较两组患者的治病原因、治疗方法以及临床效果。结果:非骨质疏松骨折组患者交通事故和砸伤致伤率均显著高于骨质疏松骨折组,而跌倒伤致伤率低于骨质疏松骨折组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组患者手术治疗方式差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);骨质疏松骨折组患者保守治疗的临床疗效优于非骨质疏松骨折组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组手术治疗的临床疗效比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:在临床治疗的实践中,应根据患者骨质疏松病情实施针对性的治疗,从而提升治疗的针对性和有效性。
Objective: To compare the clinical features and treatment of osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic fractures and provide the basis for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of fractures. Methods: A total of 186 patients with fractures treated in our hospital from December 2010 to December 2013 were selected. According to the situation of osteoporosis, the selected patients were divided into osteoporotic fracture group and non-osteoporotic fracture group, 93 cases in each group. Analysis and comparison of two groups of patients the cause of treatment, treatment and clinical effect. Results: Injury accidents caused by traffic accidents and smashed injuries in non-osteoporotic fracture group were significantly higher than those in osteoporotic fracture group, but injuries in fall injury group were lower than those in osteoporotic fracture group (P <0.05) ). There was no significant difference in operative treatment between the two groups (P> 0.05). The conservative treatment in osteoporotic fracture group was better than that in non-osteoporotic fracture group (P <0.05). The two groups of surgical treatment of clinical efficacy comparison, the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05). Conclusion: In the practice of clinical treatment, the targeted treatment should be implemented according to the patient’s osteoporosis condition so as to enhance the pertinence and effectiveness of the treatment.