切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华关节外科杂志(电子版)

中华关节外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (03) : 387 -390. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-134X.2019.03.024

所属专题： 文献；

护理园地

老年人髋关节周围骨折的护理对策和效果分析
胡芳1, 杨淑红1,†(), 张亚辉2   
  1. 1. 050001　石家庄市，河北医科大学第三医院手术室
    2. 050001　石家庄市，河北医科大学第三医院创伤急救中心
  • 收稿日期:2019-03-14 出版日期:2019-06-01
  • 通信作者: 杨淑红

Nursing strategy and effect analysis of hip periarticular fracture in the elderly

Fang Hu1, Shuhong Yang1,†(), Yahui Zhang2   

  1. 1. Operating room of the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050001, China
    2. Trauma Emergency Center, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050001, China
  • Received:2019-03-14 Published:2019-06-01
  • Corresponding author: Shuhong Yang
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Yang Shuhong, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

胡芳, 杨淑红, 张亚辉. 老年人髋关节周围骨折的护理对策和效果分析[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(03): 387-390.

Fang Hu, Shuhong Yang, Yahui Zhang. Nursing strategy and effect analysis of hip periarticular fracture in the elderly[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Joint Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(03): 387-390.

目的

通过对老年髋关节周围骨折患者的综合护理，探讨老年人髋关节周围骨折的护理对策和效果分析。

方法

选取河北医科大学第三医院手术室2015年2月至2018年2月收治的42例老年髋关节周围骨折患者作为研究对象，根据随机对照双盲法进行分组，对照组(21人)患者进行常规护理，观察组(21人)进行综合护理(包括心理护理、睡眠护理、辅助患者进行术后功能锻炼等)，应用Student’s t-test或卡方检验比较两组患者的主观满意度、住院时间、患者的活动情况(Harris评分)和并发症的发生情况。

结果

观察组患者的主观满意度显著高于对照组，差异具有统计学意义(χ2＝7.000，P<0.05)；观察组患者的住院时间短于对照组，但差异没有统计学意义(t＝1.158，P>0.05)；观察组患者的Harris评分显著高于对照组，差异具有统计学意义(t＝18.482，P<0.05)；观察组患者并发症显著低于对照组，差异具有统计学意义(χ2＝4.725，P<0.05)。

结论

综合护理可减少并发症的发生，提高老年髋关节周围骨折患者的主观满意度及患者的活动情况，对促进老年髋关节周围骨折患者康复有重要的临床意义。

关键词: 髋关节, 骨折, 老年, 护理, 并发症
Objective

To discuss effects of the comprehensive nursing and the nursing strategies of the elderly patients with hip fractures.

Methods

Forty-two elderly patients with peri-hip fracture admitted to the operating room of the third hospital of Hebei Medical University from February 2015 to February 2018 were selected as the research objects. They were randomly divided into two groups, 21 patients each. The control group received routine nursing, the observation group received comprehensive nursing(including psychological care, sleep care, assisting patients for postoperative functional exercise, etc.). Student’s t-test or Chi-square test was used to compare subjective satisfaction, length of hospital stay, patient activity (Harris score), and complications.

Results

Subjective satisfaction of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group, the difference was statistically significant (χ2=7.000, P<0.05); the hospitalization time of the observation group was shorter than that of the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (t=1.158, P>0.05); the Harris score of the observation group was significantly higher than that of the control group, the difference was statistically significant (t=18.482, P<0.05); the complication of the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group, the difference was statistically significant (χ2=4.725, P<0.05).

Conclusion

Comprehensive nursing can reduce the occurrence of complications, improve the subjective satisfaction of patients with hip fractures and the activities of patients, and have important clinical significance for promoting the rehabilitation of elderly patients with hip fractures.

Key words: Hip joint, Fractures, bone, Aged, Nursing care, Complications
表1 两组患者一般资料的对比
组别 例数 性别 年龄 [岁，(±s)]
男 女
对照组 21 12(57.1%) 9(42.9%) 72.3±1.9
观察组 21 11(52.4%) 10(47.6%) 74.3±2.4
统计值 ? χ2＝0.096 t ＝1.234
P值 ? 0.757 0.186
表2 两组患者主观满意度的对比
组别 例数 满意 比较满意 不满意 满意度
对照组 21 10 5 6 15(71%)
观察组 21 17 4 0 21(100%)
χ2值 ? ? ? ? 7.000
P值 ? ? ? ? 0.008
表3 两组患者并发症发生率的比较[例(%)]
组别 例数 伤口感染 肺炎 泌尿系感染 腹胀 便秘 总发生率
对照组 21 1(4.7) 0(0) 1(4.7) 2(9.5) 4(19.1) 38.1%
观察组 21 1(4.7) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 1(4.7) 9.5%
χ2值 ? ? ? ? ? ? 4.725
P值 ? ? ? ? ? ? 0.030
[1]
Mazzucchelli R,Pérez-Fernández E,Crespí N, et al. Second hip fracture: incidence, trends, and predictors[J]. Calcif Tissue Int, 2018, 102(6): 619-626.
[2]
Ryan DJ,Yoshihara H,Yoneoka D, et al. Delay in hip fracture surgery: an analysis of Patient-Specific and Hospital-Specific risk factors[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2015, 29(8): 343-348.
[3]
Luan RL，Zhu MX. Effect of comprehensive nursing intervention in preventing postoperative pain, complications, and psychological pressure in the otolaryngology department[J/OL]．Medicine(Baltimore), 2019, 98(24)：e15923.doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015923.
[4]
Grigoryan KV,Javedan H,Rudolph JL. Orthogeriatric care models and outcomes in hip fracture patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Orthop Trauma, 2014, 28(3): e49-e55.
[5]
Haleem S，Heinert G．Pressure sores and hip fractures[J]．Injury，2008，39(2)：219-223.
[6]
Hommel A，Bjorkelund KB，Thorngren KG.Nutritional status among patients with hip fracture in relation to pressure ulcers[J]．Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland)，2007，26(5)：589-596.
[7]
Jarzyna D，Jungquist CR，Pasero C，et al.American Society for Pain Management Nursing guidelines on monitoring for opioid-induced sedation and respiratory depression[J]．Pain Manag Nurs，2011，12(3)：118-145.
[8]
Majumdar SR,Ezekowitz JA,Lix LM, et al. Heart failure is a clinically and densitometrically independent risk factor for osteoporotic fractures: population-based cohort study of 45，509 subjects[J]. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2012, 97(4): 1179-1186.
[9]
孟宪芬．综合护理干预在小儿麻疹护理中的实施效果[J]．中国实用医药，2019，14(05)：188-189.
[10]
霍嫚，左研科．糖尿病足部溃疡创面的综合护理干预效果[J]．现代医药卫生，2019，35(03)：448-449.
[11]
Sterner A,Hagiwara MA,Ramstrand N, et al. Factors developing nursing students and novice nurses’ ability to provide care in acute situations[J]. Nurse Educ Pract, 2019, 35(35): 135-140.
[12]
Gou Y，Yi J，Jiang M．Analysis on effects of comprehensive nursing care applied in interventional therapy for patients with liver cirrhosis and liver cancer[J]. Iran J Public Health, 2019, 48(3)：494-500.
[1] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[2] 刘世君, 马杰, 师鲁静. 胃癌完整系膜切除术+标准D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 27-30.
[3] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[4] 李华志, 曹广, 刘殿刚, 张雅静. 不同入路下行肝切除术治疗原发性肝细胞癌的临床对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 52-55.
[5] 常小伟, 蔡瑜, 赵志勇, 张伟. 高强度聚焦超声消融术联合肝动脉化疗栓塞术治疗原发性肝细胞癌的效果及安全性分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 56-59.
[6] 徐逸男. 不同术式治疗梗阻性左半结直肠癌的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 72-75.
[7] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[8] 刘柏隆, 周祥福. 女性尿失禁吊带手术并发症处理的经验分享[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 127-127.
[9] 张宗明, 董家鸿, 何小东, 王秋生, 徐智, 刘立民, 张翀. 老年胆道外科热点问题的争议与思考[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 754-762.
[10] 陈秀梅, 陈思涓, 郑小静. 护理联盟体构建及实践的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 703-708.
[11] 广东省护士协会介入护士分会, 广东省医师协会介入医师分会. 原发性肝癌低血糖患者护理规范管理专家共识[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 709-714.
[12] 吴荣奎, 吴静, 冯俊浩, 钟嘉懿. 临床护理路径在经股动脉入路介入患者的应用[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 729-733.
[13] 于洁, 金小红, 顾艳楣, 王慧, 葛杨杨, 李燕. 癌症相关静脉血栓栓塞症患者疾病体验与需求的质性研究[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 739-744.
[14] 喻蓉, 周伟力, 雷青, 陈松, 陈立, 刘峰, 丁州, 阳宏奇, 王康, 王大鹏. 改良的内外侧环抱锁定钢板在复杂胫骨平台骨折治疗中的临床疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 764-770.
[15] 王誉英, 刘世伟, 王睿, 曾娅玲, 涂禧慧, 张蒲蓉. 老年乳腺癌新辅助治疗病理完全缓解的预测因素分析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(07): 641-646.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号