持续性护理对老年股骨粗隆间骨折术后患者的效果

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2022.02.006

《中国康复理论与实践》 ›› 2022, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (2): 170-174.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2022.02.006

持续性护理对老年股骨粗隆间骨折术后患者的效果

赵克聪^1,²,张宝翠^1,²,范静宇^1,²,杨威^1,²,王学华^1,²,岳晓鑫^1,²,曹艳媛^1,²,陈瑞坤^1,²,刘思妤^1,²,闵红巍^1,²()

1.首都医科大学康复医学院,北京市 100068
2.中国康复研究中心北京博爱医院,北京市 100068

收稿日期:2021-07-28 修回日期:2022-01-18 出版日期:2022-02-25 发布日期:2022-03-09
通讯作者: 闵红巍 E-mail:drmhw@163.com
作者简介:赵克聪(1967-),女,汉族,北京市人,副主任护师,主要研究方向：康复护理。|闵红巍(1971-),男,汉族,北京市人,博士,主任医师,主要研究方向：骨关节康复。
基金资助:
中国康复研究中心科研基金项目(2020-15)

Effect of continuous nursing intervention on nursing quality and postoperative function in elderly patients after femoral intertrochanteric fracture

ZHAO Kecong^1,²,ZHANG Baocui^1,²,FAN Jingyu^1,²,YANG Wei^1,²,WANG Xuehua^1,²,YUE Xiaoxin^1,²,CAO Yanyuan^1,²,CHEN Ruikun^1,²,LIU Siyu^1,²,MIN Hongwei^1,²()

1. Capital Medical University School of Rehabilitation Medicine, Beijing 100068, China
2. Beijing Bo'ai Hospital, China Rehabilitation Research Center, Beijing 100068, China

Received:2021-07-28 Revised:2022-01-18 Published:2022-02-25 Online:2022-03-09
Contact: MIN Hongwei E-mail:drmhw@163.com
Supported by:
China Rehabilitation Research Center Project(2020-15)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的探讨持续性护理干预对老年股骨粗隆间骨折股骨近端抗旋髓内钉(PFNA)内固定术后肢体功能康复和护理质量的影响。方法 2017年2月至2018年11月,本院100例行PFNA内固定术的老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者随机分为对照组(n = 50)和观察组(n = 50),分别采用常规护理干预和持续性护理干预3个月。干预前、后分别用Harris评分和疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行评定,比较术后护理效果。结果干预后,两组Harris评分均显著升高(t > 45.98, P < 0.001),观察组显著高于对照组(t = 15.03, P < 0.001);两组VAS评分均显著下降(t > 16.33, P < 0.001),观察组显著低于对照组(t = 9.749, P < 0.001)。干预后,观察组临床护理优良率高于对照组(Z = -2.272, P = 0.023)。结论持续性护理干预可以显著改善老年股骨粗隆间骨折PFNA内固定术后患者患肢功能,提高护理满意度。

关键词: 持续性护理, 老年, 股骨粗隆间骨折, 肢体功能, 护理质量

Abstract:

Objective To explore the effect of continuous nursing intervention on limb function and nursing quality after proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) internal fixation for femoral intertrochanteric fracture in the elderly. Methods From February, 2017 to November, 2018, 100 elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture who underwent PFNA internal fixation in our hospital were randomly divided into control group (n = 50) and observation group (n = 50), who accepted routine nursing and continuous nursing respectively for three months. They were assessed with Harris score and visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) before and after the intervention. The postoperative nursing effect was compared. Results The Harris score increased in both groups after the intervention (t > 45.98, P < 0.001), and increased more in the observation group than in the control group (t = 15.03, P < 0.001). The VAS score decreased in both groups after the intervention (t > 16.33, P < 0.001), and decreased more in the observation group than in the control group (t = 9.749, P < 0.001). The effect of nursing was better in the observation group than in the control group (Z = -2.272, P = 0.023). Conclusion Continuous nursing intervention can significantly improve the limb function and nursing satisfaction of elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture after PFNA.

Key words: continuous nursing, aged, femoral intertrochanteric fracture, limb function, nursing quality

中图分类号:

R687.3

赵克聪,张宝翠,范静宇,杨威,王学华,岳晓鑫,曹艳媛,陈瑞坤,刘思妤,闵红巍. 持续性护理对老年股骨粗隆间骨折术后患者的效果[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2022, 28(2): 170-174.

ZHAO Kecong,ZHANG Baocui,FAN Jingyu,YANG Wei,WANG Xuehua,YUE Xiaoxin,CAO Yanyuan,CHEN Ruikun,LIU Siyu,MIN Hongwei. Effect of continuous nursing intervention on nursing quality and postoperative function in elderly patients after femoral intertrochanteric fracture[J]. 《Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice》, 2022, 28(2): 170-174.

图/表 4

表1

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 27

[1]	FLIKWEERT E R, WENDT K W, DIERCKS R L, et al. Complications after hip fracture surgery: are they preventable?[J]. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2018, 44(4): 573-580. doi: 10.1007/s00068-017-0826-2
[2]	季斌, 刘师良, 杨东方, 等. 老年骨质疏松粗隆间骨折的快速康复外科治疗[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2019, 27(20): 1845-1849.
	JI B, LIU S L, YANG D F, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery program for osteoporotic femoral intertrochanteric fracture in elderly[J]. Orthop J Chin, 2019, 27(20): 1845-1849.
[3]	韩晓军, 张文治, 陈祥云, 等. 股骨粗隆间骨折临床治疗的研究进展[J]. 现代中西医结合杂志, 2019, 28(34): 3866-3872.
	HAN X J, ZHANG W Z, CHEN X Y, et al. Research progress in clinical treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fracture[J]. Mod J Integr Tradit Chin West Med, 2019, 28(34): 3866-3872.
[4]	CHANG S M, HOU Z Y, HU S J, et al. Intertrochanteric femur fracture treatment in Asia: what we know and what the world can learn[J]. Orthop Clin North Am, 2020, 51(2): 189-205. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2019.11.011
[5]	王生余. 老年股骨粗隆间骨折治疗的临床进展综述[J]. 中国老年学杂志, 2016, 16(57): 38-39.
	WANG S Y. Review of clinical progress in the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fracture in the elderly[J]. Chin J Gerontol (Electronic Version), 2016, 16(57): 38-39.
[6]	刘昊楠, 贺良, 张贵林, 等. 髋部骨折住院患者治疗情况的初步分析[J]. 实用医学杂志, 2015, 31(24): 4087-4089.
	LIU H N, HE L, ZHANG G L, et al. Preliminary analysis of treatment of hospitalized patients with hip fracture[J]. J Pract Med, 2015, 31(24): 4087-4089.
[7]	邢秀峰. 两种手术方案治疗股骨粗隆间骨折的临床疗效比较[J]. 医药论坛杂志, 2018, 39(11): 98-100.
	XING X F. Clinical Comparison of two surgical techniques in the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fracture[J]. J Med Forum, 2018, 39(11): 98-100.
[8]	赵福龙, 王雪飞, 张亚奎, 等. 老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者围手术期死亡危险因素分析[J]. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志, 2020, 35(4): 383-385.
	ZHAO F L, WANG X F, ZHANG Y K, et al. Analysis of risk factors for perioperative mortality in elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture[J]. Chin J Bone Joint Inj, 2020, 35(4): 383-385.
[9]	常立阳, 冯志仙, 邵荣雅, 等. 住院患者护理满意度测评量表的构建[J]. 中华护理杂志, 2012, 47(5): 454-456.
	CHANG L Y, FEGN Z X, SHAO R Y, et al. Development of the inventory of inpatient satisfaction with nursing[J]. Chin J Nurs, 2012, 47(5): 454-456.
[10]	HARRIS W H. The first 50 years of total hip arthroplasty: lessons learned[J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2009, 467(1): 28-31. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0467-1
[11]	王人楷, 章浩, 李迪, 等. 股骨粗隆间骨折临床分型研究进展[J]. 中国矫形外科杂志, 2018, 26(20): 1882-1887.
	WANG R K, ZHANG H, LI D, et al. Advance in clinical classification of femur intertrochanteric fractures[J]. Orthop J Chin, 2018, 26(20): 1882-1887.
[12]	田开峰, 刘凡凡. 护理干预在老年股骨粗隆间骨折抗旋股骨近端髓内针内固定术后患肢康复中的应用[J]. 护士进修杂志, 2015, 30(23): 2174-2175.
	TIAN K F, LIU F F. J Nurs Further Educ, 2015, 30(23): 2174-2175.
[13]	贺红梅, 安帅, 张新玉, 等. 老年股骨粗隆间骨折术后早期强化功能锻炼的对比研究[J]. 北京医学, 2017, 39(2): 150-153.
	HE H M, AN S, ZHANG X Y, et al. Comparative study on the effectiveness of early intensive home-based rehabilitation program and routine treatment in elderly intertrochanteric fracture[J]. Beijing Med, 2017, 39(2): 150-153.
[14]	田桂香, 巫远华. 高龄股骨粗隆间骨折患者使用优质护理的效果观察[J]. 医学理论与实践, 2018, 31(24): 3771-3773.
	TIAN G X, WU Y H. Effect observation of high quality nursing on elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture[J]. J Med Theor Prac, 2018, 31(24): 3771-3773.
[15]	SOCCI A R, CASEMYR N E, LESLIE M P, et al. Implant options for the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: rationale, evidence, and recommendations[J]. Bone Joint J, 2017, 99(1): 128-133.
[16]	张晓华, 袁丽, 鲁丽杰. 连续护理模式对老年髋部骨折术后患者的综合干预效果分析[J]. 中国卫生标准管理, 2017, 8(21): 179-181.
	ZHANG X H, YUAN L, LU L J. Effect of continuous nursing mode on comprehensive intervention in elderly patients with hip fracture[J]. Chin Health Standard Manage, 2017, 8(21): 179-181.
[17]	傅静, 张孟喜, 刘跃华, 等. 老年综合评估护理计划在高龄老年住院病人中的应用[J]. 全科护理, 2016, 14(23): 2401-2403.
	FU J, ZHANG M X, LIU Y H, et al. Application of elderly comprehensive evaluation nursing plan in elderly inpatients[J]. Chin Genenral Pract Nurs, 2016, 14(23): 2401-2403.
[18]	李艳利. 中西医结合干预对老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者康复的影响[J]. 长春中医药大学学报, 2016, 32(4): 789-791.
	LI Y L. Effect of combined-Chinese and Western medicine intervention on rehabilitation in elder patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture[J]. J Changchun Univ Chin Med, 2016, 32(4): 789-791.
[19]	宁荣. 股骨粗隆间骨折术后康复功能锻炼及护理常规的临床研究[J]. 中国医药科学, 2016, 6(10): 112-115.
	NING R. Clinical study of postoperative functional rehabilitation exercises and nursing routine of intertrochanteric fracture[J]. Chin Med Pharm, 2016, 6(10): 112-115.
[20]	刘会平. 老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者PFNA 内固定的早期积极康复护理[J]. 医疗装备, 2016, 29(3): 175-176.
	LIU H P. Early active rehabilitation nursing in elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture treated with PFNA internal fixation[J]. Med Equip, 2016, 29(3): 175-176.
[21]	霍瑞君. 康复护理模式对预防老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者下肢深静脉血栓效果观察[J]. 泰山医学院学报, 2017, 38(9): 1075-1076.
	HUO R J. Effect observation of rehabilitation nursing model on preventing lower extremity deep venous thrombosis in elderly patients with femoral intertrochanteric fracture[J]. J Taishan Med Coll, 2017, 38(9): 1075-1076.
[22]	殷梅平. 综合护理干预在全髋关节置换术后老年病人中的应用[J]. 护理研究, 2017, 31(23): 2931-2933.
	YIN M P. Application of comprehensive nursing intervention for elderly patients after total hip replacement[J]. Chin Nurs Res, 2017, 31(23): 2931-2933.
[23]	COLEMAN E A, BOULT C. Improving the quality of transitional care for persons with complex care needs[J]. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2003, 51(4): 556-557. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51186.x
[24]	杨梅, 邓晓峰, 刘敏, 等. 老年髋部骨折患者实施康复护理的意义研究[J]. 心理医生, 2016, 22(2): 150-151.
	YANG M, DENG X F, LIU M, et al. Study on the significance of rehabilitation nursing in elderly patients with hip fracture[J]. Psychologist, 2016, 22(2): 150-151.
[25]	司世雷. 髋骨骨折老年人232 例康复训练干预效果研究[J]. 实用医技杂志, 2017, 24(4): 434-436.
	SI S L. Effect of rehabilitation training on 232 elderly patients with hip fracture[J]. J Pract Med Tech, 2017, 24(4): 434-436.
[26]	蒋莉, 张新春, 魏海楠. 延续性护理对高龄髋部骨折患者术后髋关节功能、生活质量及负面情绪的影响[J]. 国际护理学杂志, 2018, 37(9): 1178-1182.
	JIANG L, ZHANG X C, WEI H N. The influence of continuous nursing on hip joint function, quality of life and negative emotion in patients with advanced hip fracture[J]. Int J Nurs, 2018, 37(9): 1178-1182.
[27]	HIP ATTACK Investigators. Accelerated surgery versus standard care in hip fracture (HIP ATTACK): an international, randomised, controlled trial[J]. Lancet, 2020, 395(10225): 698-708. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30058-1

项目		对照组 (n = 50)	观察组(n = 50)	t/χ²值	P值
性别/n	男性	33	34	0.045	0.832
性别/n	女性	17	16	0.045	0.832
年龄/岁		74.95±1.92	74.99±1.95	0.103	0.918
Evans分型/n	Ⅰ型	16	12	0.983	0.612
	Ⅱ型	24	25
	Ⅲ型	10	13
受伤原因/n	车祸伤	15	12	0.457	0.499
受伤原因/n	摔伤	35	38	0.457	0.499

组别	n	干预前	干预后	t值	P值
对照组	50	39.35±2.54	65.71±3.16	45.98	< 0.001
观察组	50	40.22±2.55	75.66±3.45	58.41	< 0.001
t值		1.709	15.03
P值		0.091	< 0.001

组别	n	干预前	干预后	t值	P值
对照组	50	6.37±1.27	3.21±0.51	16.33	< 0.001
观察组	50	6.41±1.32	2.35±0.36	20.98	< 0.001
t值		0.154	9.749
P值		0.878	< 0.001

持续性护理对老年股骨粗隆间骨折术后患者的效果

Effect of continuous nursing intervention on nursing quality and postoperative function in elderly patients after femoral intertrochanteric fracture

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 27

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

[1]	王航宇, 葛可可, 范永红, 都丽露, 邹敏, 封磊. 基于ICD-11和ICF主动式音乐疗法改善认知障碍老年人认知功能的系统综述[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2024, 30(1): 36-43.
[2]	葛可可, 范永红, 王航宇, 都丽露, 李长江, 邹敏. 失眠老年人正念干预健康效益的系统综述[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2024, 30(1): 54-60.
[3]	杨雅楠, 穆丽萍, 邢凤梅, 薛新宏, 王晓光, 陶徉聿, 孙竹梅, 张小丽. 基于计划行为理论的干预对肌少症老年人肌肉衰减状况及平衡能力的效果[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(8): 869-874.
[4]	蒋长好, 黄辰, 高晓妍, 戴元富, 赵国明. 神经反馈训练对老年人认知功能效果的系统综述[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(8): 903-909.
[5]	谭晓欢, 姜桂萍, 黄芯怡, 王丹丹, 张磊, 卜庆国, 吴雪萍. 社区高龄老年人下肢肌力与步速的关系：柔韧和动态平衡的链式中介作用[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(6): 646-653.
[6]	袁媛, 杨剑. 社区老年人身体活动融合慢性病管理的健康效益：Scoping综述[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(5): 541-550.
[7]	罗启航, 吴羽皙, 张嘉璇, 黎婉颖, 欧海宁, 林强, 梁俊杰. 老年人平衡功能的脑网络变化：基于功能性近红外线光谱研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(2): 238-242.
[8]	乔虎军, 郝鑫, 刘晓燕, 王国祥. 肌少症老年人运动康复的健康效益：系统综述的系统综述[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(11): 1296-1303.
[9]	朱烈烈, 夏建宁, 蒲新宇, 邵湘芝, 张嘉诚, 吴登宠. 老年营养风险指数对脑卒中后神经功能预后的效能[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(11): 1346-1352.
[10]	吴佳玉, 孟德涛, 梁潇潇. 体力活动水平对帕金森病发病风险的影响：基于CHARLS数据的横断面分析[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(10): 1135-1139.
[11]	刘梦雅, 张利, 张梦, 宋楠楠, 周静蕾. 中国老年人内在能力与日常生活活动的相关性：基于CHARLS数据[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(10): 1140-1146.
[12]	唐家玉, 邱服冰. 老年人心理社会干预与心理健康的系统综述[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(10): 1164-1170.
[13]	阚超杰, 郭川, 朱仕哲, 眭有昕, 王庆雷, 庄任, 耿阿燕, 王彤. 老年人在认知-平衡双任务下的皮质激活特征[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(10): 1189-1194.
[14]	袁媛,杨剑. 慢性病和功能障碍老年人身体活动的健康效果：系统综述的系统综述[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2022, 28(9): 1003-1011.
[15]	徐金燕,张倩倩,张颖. 政府购买老年康复服务质量满意度的影响因素[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2022, 28(6): 730-738.

组别	n	显效	有效	无效
对照组	50	13	28	9
观察组	50	21	27	2