686髋股骨头坏死中、西医治疗的回顾性研究
|
摘要
股骨头坏死(Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head, ONFH)是由于某些原因导致股骨头无菌性炎症、坏死的一种病理过程,临床以疼痛、跛行、功能障碍为特征,病情呈进行性加重,致残率极高,疗效差,严重影响人们的生活健康。随着对股骨头坏死临床研究的不断深入,许多方法开始结合应用,在临床上并取得了很好的疗效,显示出其巨大的潜力和广阔的前景。而中医药对股骨头坏死的早期治疗,在某些方面也体现了比较明显的优势。
目的：
通过中、西医治疗股骨头坏死的回顾性研究,观察其近中期疗效和中医证候特点,分析中、西医治疗股骨头坏死的优势,以便于指导股骨头坏死的临床治疗。
方法：
拟定本研究方案；选取2002年1月至2008年12月在中国中医科学院望京医院接受治疗的股骨头坏死患者；设计CRF表,根据纳入标准与剔除标准,对采用中、西医保守治疗方法且随访在1年至三年的患者填写CRF表,同时收集各阶段影像材料；整理入组患者的临床资料和影像评定资料,建立数据库；选取合适的统计学方法对数据进行统计分析。
结果：
1.一般情况
2002年1月至2008年12月股骨头坏死病例共487例,满足随访病例共421例,686髋,随访率86.45%。其中男性274例,451髋,女性147例,235髋。最大年龄75岁,最小年龄15岁,平均40.46±11.34。获得了平均20.3个月的随访。
随访一年病例434髋,随访两年病例183髋,随访三年及以上病例69髋。
中药多途径治疗406髋,植骨+中药治疗182髋,综合保守治疗98髋。
Ⅰ期32髋,Ⅱ期453髋,Ⅲ期190髋,Ⅳ期11髋。(表1)
中药多途径治疗后随访一年病例261髋，随访两年病例100髋，随访三年病例45髋；植骨+中药治疗后随访一年病例106髋，随访两年病例54髋，随访三年病例22髋；综合保守治疗后随访一年病例67髋，随访两年病例29髋，随访三年病例2髋。
Ⅰ期治疗后随访一年病例21髋，随访两年病例7髋，随访三年病例4髋；Ⅱ期治疗后随访一年病例278髋，随访两年病例127髋，随访三年病例48髋；Ⅲ期治疗后随访一年病例126髋，随访两年病例47髋，随访三年病例17髋；Ⅳ期治疗后随访一年病例9髋，随访两年病例2髋。(表2)
2．总体结果
2．1 Harris髋关节功能评价
按Harris效性标准，686髋股骨头坏死病例总有效率达到80．61％。
2．2影像学评价
按影像学效性指标，686髋股骨头坏死病例影像稳定率为80．47％。
3单因素分层结果
3．1按治疗方法
3．1．1 Harris髋关节功能评价
三种治疗方法的总体稳定率分别为62．24％、83．25％、79．67％。不同治疗方法间Harris功能评价的总有效率差异无统计学意义(P>0．05)。
3．1．2影像学评价
三种治疗方法的影像稳定率分别为84．69％、81．28％、80．22％。不同治疗方法间影像学稳定率差异无统计学意义(P>0．05)。
3．2按ARCO分期
3.2.1 Harris髋关节功能评价
Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ期的总有效率分别为90.63%、83.44%、73.16%、36.36%。不同分期的股骨头坏死病例的总有效率差异显著,有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
3.2.2影像学评价
Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ期的影像稳定率分别为82.78%、80.53%、90.91%,不同分期的股骨头坏死病例的影像稳定率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
3.3按随访时间
3.3.1 Harris髋关节功能评价
随访三个时间点的总有效率分别为79.49%、84.70%、76.81%,不同随访时间股骨头坏死病例的总有效率差异显著,有统计学意义(P<0.05)。3.3.2 Harris评分比较
随访一年病例总体Harris评分为78.04±11.80；随访两年病例总体Harris评分为80.54±11.68；随访三年病例总体Harris评分为81.50±8.00。ANOVA分析检验结果：随访两年及三年Harris评分高于随访一年Harris评分,有统计学意义(P<0.05)；随访三年Harris评分高于随访两年Harris评分,无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
3.3.2影像学评价
按影像学效性标准,三个随访时间点的影像稳定率分别为82.26%、77.60%、76.81%。不同随访时间股骨头坏死病例的影像稳定率无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
4两因素分层
4.1按治疗方法-随访时间
4.1.1 Harris评分比较
ANOVA分析检验结果：与中药多途径给药治疗后一年相比,治疗后两年Harris评分提高,有统计学意义(p<0.05)。
4.1.2 Harris髋关节功能评价
综合保守治疗后随访一年、两年的临床显效率分别为8.96%、17.24%,有效率分别为50.75%、48.28%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
中药多途径给药治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的临床显效率分别为16.48%、21.00%、15.56%,有效率分别为67.82%、61.00%、64.44%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
植骨+中药治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的临床显效率分别为16.04%、24.07%、18.18%,有效率分别为61.32%、61.32%、68.18%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
4.1.3影像学评价
综合保守治疗后随访一年、两年的稳定率分别为89.55%、72.41%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
中药多途径给药治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的稳定率分别为82.76%、79.00%、77.78%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
植骨+中药治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的稳定率分别为78.30%、81.48%、81.82%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
4.2按治疗方法-随访时间
4.2.1 Harris评分比较
ANOVA分析检验结果：Ⅲ期病例中,与治疗后一年的Harris评分比较,治疗后两年和三年均有所提高,,有统计学意义(p<0.05)。
4.2.2 Harris髋关节功能评价
Ⅰ期病例治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的临床显效率分别为33.33%、42.86%、50.00%,有效率分别为52.38%、57.14%、50.00%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
Ⅱ期病例治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的临床显效率分别为16.19%、19.69%、14.58%,有效率分别为68.71%、62.99%、62.50%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
Ⅲ期病例治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的临床显效率分别为16.67%、27.66%、11.76%,有效率分别为55.56%、48.94%、58.82%。卡方检验结果差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
4.2.3影像学评价
Ⅰ期病例治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的稳定率均为100%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
Ⅱ期病例治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的稳定率分别为84.53%、81.10%、77.08%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
Ⅲ期病例治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的稳定率分别为83.33%、76.60%、70.59%。卡方检验结果差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
Ⅳ期病例治疗后一年、两年的稳定率分别为88.89%。
5证候特点
在421例股骨头坏死患者中,气滞血瘀证(A组)患者55例,占13.06%；痰瘀阻络证(B组)患者168例,占49.90%；经脉痹阻证(C组)患者109例,占25.89%,肝肾亏虚证(D组)患者89例,占21.14%。三个证型分别采用中药多途径给药治疗、植骨+中药治疗和综合保守治疗的例数之间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
关节疼痛、晨僵、体倦乏力、关节屈伸不利等常见症状或体征与证候分型的关系：关节疼痛及晨僵在气滞血瘀证、痰瘀阻络证及经脉痹阻证中常见,肝肾亏虚证常见有体倦乏力的表现,而股骨头坏死患者中功能普遍较差,关节屈伸不利。
结论：
1.股骨头坏死的中、西医保髋治疗不仅必要,且疗效确切,具有可行性；
2.中药多途径给药治疗具有操作简单、药物作用充分、副作用小、安全性高的优点,更易于被患者接受；
3.在植骨的基础上,应用中药内服外用治疗在功能恢复和作用持久方面能发挥更大作用。
Objective:
Through retrospective clinical study on osteonecrosis of the femoral head(ONFH) with integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine treatment, observe the short-term effectiveness and traditional Chinese medicine syndrome and analyse its superiority so as to guide the clinical treatment.
Method:
Screen the cases of femoral head necrosis (ONFH) for conservative treatment in Wangjing hospital of China Acadamy of Chinese Medicine Science from January 2002 to December 2008, and follow-up to a year or more, collect the case report form(CRF) and image material of each stage, then establish a database, apply image and Harris score for efficacy evaluation. Analyse statistically by stratifing according to the three factors:treatment method, ARCO stage and follow-up time.
Results:
1 General information
There's 487 ONFH cases received conservative treatment from January 2002 to December 2008.421 cases of patients (686 hips)met the follow-up, up to 86.45%. 274 cases(451 hips) were male,147 cases (235 hips) female. The age range was 15-75 years old, mean 40.46±11.34. Received an average of 20.3 months of follow-up.
434 hips were followed up for one year,183 hips for two years,69 hips for three years or more.
406 hips with traditional Chinese medicine multi-way treatment(Method 1) were followed up,182 hips with grafting bone+traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) treatment(Method 2), and 98 hips with synthesis conservative treatment(Method 3).
32 hips of ONFH patients ARCOⅠwere followed up,453 hips of ARCOⅡ, 190 hips of ARCOⅢ,11 hips of ARCOⅣ. (Table 1)
After Method 1 treatment,261 hips were followed up for one year,100 hips for two years,45 hips for three years; after Method 2 treatment 106 hips were followed up for one year,54 hips for two years,22 hips three-year's; after Method 3 treatment, 67 hips were followed up for one year,29 hips for two years,2 hips for three years.
Ⅰperiod of ONFH patients after treatment,21 hips were followed up for one year,7 hips for two years,4 hips for three years;Ⅱperiod of ONFH patients after treatment,287 hips were followed up for one year,129 hips for two years,48 hips for three years;Ⅲperiod of ONFH patients after treatment,126 hips were followed up for one year,47 hips for two years,17 hips for three years;Ⅳperiod of ONFH patients after treatment,9 hips were followed up for one year,2 hips for two years.
2 Overall Results
2.1 Harris hip joint function appraisal
According to the Harris titre standard, total effectiveness of 686 ONFH hips achieves 80.61%.
2.2 Image result
According to the image titre standard,686 ONFH hips'phantom index of stability is 80.47%.
3 Stratified the results of single factor
3.1 Stratified according to treatment
3.1.1 Harris hip joint function appraisal
Overall index of stability of the three treatment methods is respectively 62.24%, 83.25%,79.67%. The total effective rate of the Harris function appraisal among different treatment methods is no significant difference (P>0.05).
3.1.2 Image result
The image stable rate of three methods is respectively 84.69%,81.28%,80.22%. Different methods in the treatment have no significant difference in image stable rate (P> 0.05).
3.2 Stratified according to ARCO Stage
3.2.1 Harris hip joint function appraisal
The total effective rate of ARCOⅠ,Ⅱ,Ⅲ,Ⅳis respectively 90.63%,83.44%, 73.16%,36.36%. The total efficiency in different stages has significant difference statistically (P<0.05).
3.2.2 Image result
The image stable rate of ARCOⅡ,Ⅲ,Ⅳis respectively 84.69%,81.28%, 80.22%. Different stages in the treatment have significant difference in image stable rate(P<0.05).
3.3 Stratified according to follow-up time
3.3.1 Harris hip joint function appraisal
The total effective rate of the three time points is respectively 79.49%,84.70%, 76.81%. The total efficiency in different follow-up time has significant difference statistically (P<0.05).
3.3.2 Harris score comparison
Overall Harris score followed up a year was 78.04±11.80; up two cases, the score was 80.54±11.68; up three cases was 81.50±8.00. ANOVA analysis of test results:two-and three-year follow-up Harris score was higher than the one-year's, statistically significant (P<0.05); three-year follow-up Harris score was higher than the two-year's, no statistical significance(P> 0.05).
3.3.3 Image result
The image stable rate of the three time points is respectively 82.26%,77.60%, 76.81%. Different follow-up time has no statistical difference in image stable rate (P> 0.05).
4 Stratified the results of two factors
4.1 Stratified according to treatment-follow-up time
4.1.1 Harris score comparison
ANOVA analysis of test results:compared to one year after treatment with Method 1, Harris score after treatment for two years increased significantly (p<0.05).
4.1.2 Harris hip joint function appraisal
According to Harris evaluation criteria, with Method 1 treatment,16.48% clinical excellence and 67.82% efficiency for follow-up one year,21.00% and 61.00% for two years,15.56% and 64.44% for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
According to Harris evaluation criteria, with Method 2 treatment,16.04% clinical excellence,61.32% efficiency for follow-up one year,24.07% and 61.32% for two years,18.18% and 68.18% for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
According to Harris evaluation criteria, with Method 3 treatment,8.96% clinical excellence,50.75% efficiency for follow-up one year,17.24% and 48.28% for two years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
4.1.3 Image result
By image evaluation criteria, with Method 1 treatment,82.26% stable for follow-up one year; 79.00% stable for two years; 77.78% stable for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
By image evaluation criteria, with Method 2 treatment,78.30% stable for follow-up one year; 81.48% stable for two years; 81.82% stable for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
By image evaluation criteria, with Method 1 treatment,89.55% stable for follow-up one year; 72.41% stable for two years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
4.2 Stratified according to treatment-follow-up time
4.2.1 Harris score comparison
ANOVA analysis of test results:compared with stageⅢfor one year, Harris score increased for two years and three years after treatment with statistical significance (p<0.05).
4.2.2 Harris hip joint function appraisal
According to Harris evaluation criteria, in StageⅠcases,33.33% clinical excellence,52.38% efficiency for follow-up one year,42.86% and 57.14% for two years,50.50% and 50.00% for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
According to Harris evaluation criteria, in StageⅡcases,16.19% clinical excellence,68.71% efficiency for follow-up one year,19.69% and 62.99% for two years,14.58% and 62.50% for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
According to Harris evaluation criteria, in StageⅢcases,16.67% clinical excellence,55.56% efficiency for follow-up one year,27.66% and 48.94% for two years.11.76% and 58.82% for three years. Chi-square test results significantly (P <0.05).
According to Harris evaluation criteria, in StageⅣcases,33.33% efficiency for follow-up one year,50.00% clinical excellence for two years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
4.2.3 Image result
By image evaluation criteria, in StageⅠcases,100.00% stable for the three time points.
By image evaluation criteria, in StageⅡcases,84.53% stable for follow-up one year; 81.10% stable for two years; 77.08% stable for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
By image evaluation criteria, in StageⅢcases,83.33% stable for follow-up one year; 76.60% stable for two years; 70.59% stable for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
By image evaluation criteria, in StageⅣcases,88.89% stable for follow-up one year.
5 Syndromes characteristic
In 421 cases of ONFH patients, stagnancy of qi and blood stasis type(气滞血瘀证, Type A) were 55 cases, accounting for 13.06%; the stagnation of phlegm and blood stasis in collateral branch of the large channel type (痰瘀阻络型, Type B) 168 cases, accounting for 49.90%, blockage of channels type (经脉痹阻型, Type C) 109 cases, accounting for 25.89%, liver-yin and kidney-yin type (肝肾亏虚型, Type D) 89 cases, accounting for 21.14%.
Relationship between common adverse symptoms or signs (such as Joint pain, morning stiffness, body tired fatigue, joint flexion and extension) and syndrome type: joint pain and morning stiffness in Type A, Type B and Type C, Type D common with the performance of weak body tired. but the function of the ONFH patients are generally bad joint flexion and extension negative accompanied.
Conclusion:
1. ONFH as a worldwide difficult treatment disease at high rate of deformity, the Chinese and Western medical hip-preserving treatment is not only necessary but also effective and feasible.
2. Chinese medicine treatment of multi-channel delivery is simple, drugs function full, small side effects, the advantages of high security, more easily acceptable by the patients.
3. The application of topical treatment of Chinese Herbs based on the bone graft can play a greater role in the function and sustainable.
目的：
通过中、西医治疗股骨头坏死的回顾性研究,观察其近中期疗效和中医证候特点,分析中、西医治疗股骨头坏死的优势,以便于指导股骨头坏死的临床治疗。
方法：
拟定本研究方案；选取2002年1月至2008年12月在中国中医科学院望京医院接受治疗的股骨头坏死患者；设计CRF表,根据纳入标准与剔除标准,对采用中、西医保守治疗方法且随访在1年至三年的患者填写CRF表,同时收集各阶段影像材料；整理入组患者的临床资料和影像评定资料,建立数据库；选取合适的统计学方法对数据进行统计分析。
结果：
1.一般情况
2002年1月至2008年12月股骨头坏死病例共487例,满足随访病例共421例,686髋,随访率86.45%。其中男性274例,451髋,女性147例,235髋。最大年龄75岁,最小年龄15岁,平均40.46±11.34。获得了平均20.3个月的随访。
随访一年病例434髋,随访两年病例183髋,随访三年及以上病例69髋。
中药多途径治疗406髋,植骨+中药治疗182髋,综合保守治疗98髋。
Ⅰ期32髋,Ⅱ期453髋,Ⅲ期190髋,Ⅳ期11髋。(表1)
中药多途径治疗后随访一年病例261髋，随访两年病例100髋，随访三年病例45髋；植骨+中药治疗后随访一年病例106髋，随访两年病例54髋，随访三年病例22髋；综合保守治疗后随访一年病例67髋，随访两年病例29髋，随访三年病例2髋。
Ⅰ期治疗后随访一年病例21髋，随访两年病例7髋，随访三年病例4髋；Ⅱ期治疗后随访一年病例278髋，随访两年病例127髋，随访三年病例48髋；Ⅲ期治疗后随访一年病例126髋，随访两年病例47髋，随访三年病例17髋；Ⅳ期治疗后随访一年病例9髋，随访两年病例2髋。(表2)
2．总体结果
2．1 Harris髋关节功能评价
按Harris效性标准，686髋股骨头坏死病例总有效率达到80．61％。
2．2影像学评价
按影像学效性指标，686髋股骨头坏死病例影像稳定率为80．47％。
3单因素分层结果
3．1按治疗方法
3．1．1 Harris髋关节功能评价
三种治疗方法的总体稳定率分别为62．24％、83．25％、79．67％。不同治疗方法间Harris功能评价的总有效率差异无统计学意义(P>0．05)。
3．1．2影像学评价
三种治疗方法的影像稳定率分别为84．69％、81．28％、80．22％。不同治疗方法间影像学稳定率差异无统计学意义(P>0．05)。
3．2按ARCO分期
3.2.1 Harris髋关节功能评价
Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ期的总有效率分别为90.63%、83.44%、73.16%、36.36%。不同分期的股骨头坏死病例的总有效率差异显著,有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
3.2.2影像学评价
Ⅱ、Ⅲ、Ⅳ期的影像稳定率分别为82.78%、80.53%、90.91%,不同分期的股骨头坏死病例的影像稳定率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
3.3按随访时间
3.3.1 Harris髋关节功能评价
随访三个时间点的总有效率分别为79.49%、84.70%、76.81%,不同随访时间股骨头坏死病例的总有效率差异显著,有统计学意义(P<0.05)。3.3.2 Harris评分比较
随访一年病例总体Harris评分为78.04±11.80；随访两年病例总体Harris评分为80.54±11.68；随访三年病例总体Harris评分为81.50±8.00。ANOVA分析检验结果：随访两年及三年Harris评分高于随访一年Harris评分,有统计学意义(P<0.05)；随访三年Harris评分高于随访两年Harris评分,无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
3.3.2影像学评价
按影像学效性标准,三个随访时间点的影像稳定率分别为82.26%、77.60%、76.81%。不同随访时间股骨头坏死病例的影像稳定率无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
4两因素分层
4.1按治疗方法-随访时间
4.1.1 Harris评分比较
ANOVA分析检验结果：与中药多途径给药治疗后一年相比,治疗后两年Harris评分提高,有统计学意义(p<0.05)。
4.1.2 Harris髋关节功能评价
综合保守治疗后随访一年、两年的临床显效率分别为8.96%、17.24%,有效率分别为50.75%、48.28%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
中药多途径给药治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的临床显效率分别为16.48%、21.00%、15.56%,有效率分别为67.82%、61.00%、64.44%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
植骨+中药治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的临床显效率分别为16.04%、24.07%、18.18%,有效率分别为61.32%、61.32%、68.18%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
4.1.3影像学评价
综合保守治疗后随访一年、两年的稳定率分别为89.55%、72.41%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
中药多途径给药治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的稳定率分别为82.76%、79.00%、77.78%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
植骨+中药治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的稳定率分别为78.30%、81.48%、81.82%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
4.2按治疗方法-随访时间
4.2.1 Harris评分比较
ANOVA分析检验结果：Ⅲ期病例中,与治疗后一年的Harris评分比较,治疗后两年和三年均有所提高,,有统计学意义(p<0.05)。
4.2.2 Harris髋关节功能评价
Ⅰ期病例治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的临床显效率分别为33.33%、42.86%、50.00%,有效率分别为52.38%、57.14%、50.00%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
Ⅱ期病例治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的临床显效率分别为16.19%、19.69%、14.58%,有效率分别为68.71%、62.99%、62.50%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
Ⅲ期病例治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的临床显效率分别为16.67%、27.66%、11.76%,有效率分别为55.56%、48.94%、58.82%。卡方检验结果差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
4.2.3影像学评价
Ⅰ期病例治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的稳定率均为100%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
Ⅱ期病例治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的稳定率分别为84.53%、81.10%、77.08%。卡方检验结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
Ⅲ期病例治疗后随访一年、两年、三年的稳定率分别为83.33%、76.60%、70.59%。卡方检验结果差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
Ⅳ期病例治疗后一年、两年的稳定率分别为88.89%。
5证候特点
在421例股骨头坏死患者中,气滞血瘀证(A组)患者55例,占13.06%；痰瘀阻络证(B组)患者168例,占49.90%；经脉痹阻证(C组)患者109例,占25.89%,肝肾亏虚证(D组)患者89例,占21.14%。三个证型分别采用中药多途径给药治疗、植骨+中药治疗和综合保守治疗的例数之间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
关节疼痛、晨僵、体倦乏力、关节屈伸不利等常见症状或体征与证候分型的关系：关节疼痛及晨僵在气滞血瘀证、痰瘀阻络证及经脉痹阻证中常见,肝肾亏虚证常见有体倦乏力的表现,而股骨头坏死患者中功能普遍较差,关节屈伸不利。
结论：
1.股骨头坏死的中、西医保髋治疗不仅必要,且疗效确切,具有可行性；
2.中药多途径给药治疗具有操作简单、药物作用充分、副作用小、安全性高的优点,更易于被患者接受；
3.在植骨的基础上,应用中药内服外用治疗在功能恢复和作用持久方面能发挥更大作用。
Objective:
Through retrospective clinical study on osteonecrosis of the femoral head(ONFH) with integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine treatment, observe the short-term effectiveness and traditional Chinese medicine syndrome and analyse its superiority so as to guide the clinical treatment.
Method:
Screen the cases of femoral head necrosis (ONFH) for conservative treatment in Wangjing hospital of China Acadamy of Chinese Medicine Science from January 2002 to December 2008, and follow-up to a year or more, collect the case report form(CRF) and image material of each stage, then establish a database, apply image and Harris score for efficacy evaluation. Analyse statistically by stratifing according to the three factors:treatment method, ARCO stage and follow-up time.
Results:
1 General information
There's 487 ONFH cases received conservative treatment from January 2002 to December 2008.421 cases of patients (686 hips)met the follow-up, up to 86.45%. 274 cases(451 hips) were male,147 cases (235 hips) female. The age range was 15-75 years old, mean 40.46±11.34. Received an average of 20.3 months of follow-up.
434 hips were followed up for one year,183 hips for two years,69 hips for three years or more.
406 hips with traditional Chinese medicine multi-way treatment(Method 1) were followed up,182 hips with grafting bone+traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) treatment(Method 2), and 98 hips with synthesis conservative treatment(Method 3).
32 hips of ONFH patients ARCOⅠwere followed up,453 hips of ARCOⅡ, 190 hips of ARCOⅢ,11 hips of ARCOⅣ. (Table 1)
After Method 1 treatment,261 hips were followed up for one year,100 hips for two years,45 hips for three years; after Method 2 treatment 106 hips were followed up for one year,54 hips for two years,22 hips three-year's; after Method 3 treatment, 67 hips were followed up for one year,29 hips for two years,2 hips for three years.
Ⅰperiod of ONFH patients after treatment,21 hips were followed up for one year,7 hips for two years,4 hips for three years;Ⅱperiod of ONFH patients after treatment,287 hips were followed up for one year,129 hips for two years,48 hips for three years;Ⅲperiod of ONFH patients after treatment,126 hips were followed up for one year,47 hips for two years,17 hips for three years;Ⅳperiod of ONFH patients after treatment,9 hips were followed up for one year,2 hips for two years.
2 Overall Results
2.1 Harris hip joint function appraisal
According to the Harris titre standard, total effectiveness of 686 ONFH hips achieves 80.61%.
2.2 Image result
According to the image titre standard,686 ONFH hips'phantom index of stability is 80.47%.
3 Stratified the results of single factor
3.1 Stratified according to treatment
3.1.1 Harris hip joint function appraisal
Overall index of stability of the three treatment methods is respectively 62.24%, 83.25%,79.67%. The total effective rate of the Harris function appraisal among different treatment methods is no significant difference (P>0.05).
3.1.2 Image result
The image stable rate of three methods is respectively 84.69%,81.28%,80.22%. Different methods in the treatment have no significant difference in image stable rate (P> 0.05).
3.2 Stratified according to ARCO Stage
3.2.1 Harris hip joint function appraisal
The total effective rate of ARCOⅠ,Ⅱ,Ⅲ,Ⅳis respectively 90.63%,83.44%, 73.16%,36.36%. The total efficiency in different stages has significant difference statistically (P<0.05).
3.2.2 Image result
The image stable rate of ARCOⅡ,Ⅲ,Ⅳis respectively 84.69%,81.28%, 80.22%. Different stages in the treatment have significant difference in image stable rate(P<0.05).
3.3 Stratified according to follow-up time
3.3.1 Harris hip joint function appraisal
The total effective rate of the three time points is respectively 79.49%,84.70%, 76.81%. The total efficiency in different follow-up time has significant difference statistically (P<0.05).
3.3.2 Harris score comparison
Overall Harris score followed up a year was 78.04±11.80; up two cases, the score was 80.54±11.68; up three cases was 81.50±8.00. ANOVA analysis of test results:two-and three-year follow-up Harris score was higher than the one-year's, statistically significant (P<0.05); three-year follow-up Harris score was higher than the two-year's, no statistical significance(P> 0.05).
3.3.3 Image result
The image stable rate of the three time points is respectively 82.26%,77.60%, 76.81%. Different follow-up time has no statistical difference in image stable rate (P> 0.05).
4 Stratified the results of two factors
4.1 Stratified according to treatment-follow-up time
4.1.1 Harris score comparison
ANOVA analysis of test results:compared to one year after treatment with Method 1, Harris score after treatment for two years increased significantly (p<0.05).
4.1.2 Harris hip joint function appraisal
According to Harris evaluation criteria, with Method 1 treatment,16.48% clinical excellence and 67.82% efficiency for follow-up one year,21.00% and 61.00% for two years,15.56% and 64.44% for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
According to Harris evaluation criteria, with Method 2 treatment,16.04% clinical excellence,61.32% efficiency for follow-up one year,24.07% and 61.32% for two years,18.18% and 68.18% for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
According to Harris evaluation criteria, with Method 3 treatment,8.96% clinical excellence,50.75% efficiency for follow-up one year,17.24% and 48.28% for two years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
4.1.3 Image result
By image evaluation criteria, with Method 1 treatment,82.26% stable for follow-up one year; 79.00% stable for two years; 77.78% stable for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
By image evaluation criteria, with Method 2 treatment,78.30% stable for follow-up one year; 81.48% stable for two years; 81.82% stable for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
By image evaluation criteria, with Method 1 treatment,89.55% stable for follow-up one year; 72.41% stable for two years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
4.2 Stratified according to treatment-follow-up time
4.2.1 Harris score comparison
ANOVA analysis of test results:compared with stageⅢfor one year, Harris score increased for two years and three years after treatment with statistical significance (p<0.05).
4.2.2 Harris hip joint function appraisal
According to Harris evaluation criteria, in StageⅠcases,33.33% clinical excellence,52.38% efficiency for follow-up one year,42.86% and 57.14% for two years,50.50% and 50.00% for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
According to Harris evaluation criteria, in StageⅡcases,16.19% clinical excellence,68.71% efficiency for follow-up one year,19.69% and 62.99% for two years,14.58% and 62.50% for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
According to Harris evaluation criteria, in StageⅢcases,16.67% clinical excellence,55.56% efficiency for follow-up one year,27.66% and 48.94% for two years.11.76% and 58.82% for three years. Chi-square test results significantly (P <0.05).
According to Harris evaluation criteria, in StageⅣcases,33.33% efficiency for follow-up one year,50.00% clinical excellence for two years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
4.2.3 Image result
By image evaluation criteria, in StageⅠcases,100.00% stable for the three time points.
By image evaluation criteria, in StageⅡcases,84.53% stable for follow-up one year; 81.10% stable for two years; 77.08% stable for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
By image evaluation criteria, in StageⅢcases,83.33% stable for follow-up one year; 76.60% stable for two years; 70.59% stable for three years. Chi-square test results showed no significant difference (P> 0.05).
By image evaluation criteria, in StageⅣcases,88.89% stable for follow-up one year.
5 Syndromes characteristic
In 421 cases of ONFH patients, stagnancy of qi and blood stasis type(气滞血瘀证, Type A) were 55 cases, accounting for 13.06%; the stagnation of phlegm and blood stasis in collateral branch of the large channel type (痰瘀阻络型, Type B) 168 cases, accounting for 49.90%, blockage of channels type (经脉痹阻型, Type C) 109 cases, accounting for 25.89%, liver-yin and kidney-yin type (肝肾亏虚型, Type D) 89 cases, accounting for 21.14%.
Relationship between common adverse symptoms or signs (such as Joint pain, morning stiffness, body tired fatigue, joint flexion and extension) and syndrome type: joint pain and morning stiffness in Type A, Type B and Type C, Type D common with the performance of weak body tired. but the function of the ONFH patients are generally bad joint flexion and extension negative accompanied.
Conclusion:
1. ONFH as a worldwide difficult treatment disease at high rate of deformity, the Chinese and Western medical hip-preserving treatment is not only necessary but also effective and feasible.
2. Chinese medicine treatment of multi-channel delivery is simple, drugs function full, small side effects, the advantages of high security, more easily acceptable by the patients.
3. The application of topical treatment of Chinese Herbs based on the bone graft can play a greater role in the function and sustainable.
引文
[1]李红军,唐洪涛,陈洪干等.病灶清除结合自体骨植入支撑治疗股骨头早中期坏死[J].中国骨与关节损伤杂志,2009,4(4)：332-334.
[2]林志炯,苏培基,伍中庆等.股骨头髓心减压加异体腓骨移植术治疗股骨头缺血性坏死[J].中国骨伤,2009,22(8)：628-630.
[3]陈跃平,王大伟,苏波等.髓芯减压配合中药治疗早期股骨头缺血性坏死[J].现代中西医结合杂志,2009,18(13)：1481-1482.
[4]杨晓凤,王红梅,许忆峰等.超选择性动脉干细胞移植治疗创伤性股骨头缺血性坏死的研究[J].中国医药生物技术,2009,4(4)：257-261.
[5]万宇,赵富胜,陈施展等.动脉灌注髓芯减压干细胞移植治疗股骨头坏死[J].实用骨科杂志,2009,15(3)：171-173.
[6]徐军,田军,许超蕊等.髓芯减压+自体外周血干细胞移植治疗早期股骨头缺血性坏死[J].临床骨科杂志,2008,1(1)：21-41.
[7]刘永灿,王无胜,付常清,等.股骨头缺血.性坏死的治疗[J].中国创伤骨科杂志,2001,3(3)：198-200.
[8]王西迅,诸葛天瑜,陈旭辉等.血管束植入治疗儿童股骨头坏死的远期疗效分析[J].中国骨伤,2006,19(5)：276-278.
[9]黄相杰,姜红江,刘德忠等.磷酸钙骨水泥/丹参缓释系统植入治疗股骨头缺血性坏死[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2008,22(3)：307-310.
[10]Tsao AK, Roberson JR, Christie MJ, et al. Biomechanical and clinical evaluations of a porous tantalum implant for the treatment of early stage osteonecrosis [J]. J Bone Joint Surg(Am),2005,2:22-27.
[11]Veillette CJ, Mehdian H, Schemitsch EH, et al. Survivorship analysis and radiographic outcome following tantalum rod insertion for osteonecrosis of the femoral head [J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2006,88(1):48-55.
[12]Shuler MS, Rooks MD, Roberson JR. Porous tantalum implant in early osteonecrosis of the hi p:preliminary report on operative, survival, and outcomes results. J Arthroplasty, 2007,22(1):26-31.
[13]陈坚锋,冯宗权,王全兵等.骨小梁钽金属棒微创治疗早期股骨头坏死的临床研究[J].临床医学工程,2009,16(8)：21-24.
[14]王上增,宋晓光,孙永强等.骨小梁金属重建棒植入治疗早期股骨头缺血性坏死的近期疗效[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2009,23(5)：562-565.
[15]王岩,王继芳,卢世璧等.网球支架置入治疗成人股骨头缺血性坏死[J].中华骨科杂志,2000,20(5)：295-298.
[16]柴伟,王岩,王志刚等.记忆合金网球治疗成人股骨头缺血性坏死[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2008,22(2)：239-241.
[17]陆永强,徐跃根,金才益等.无柄人工全髋关节置换治疗青壮年晚期股骨头缺血坏死11例[J].现代中西医结合杂志,2009,18(18)：2183-2184.
[18]钱齐荣,苟三怀,黄国富等.新型无柄人工髋关节生物固定的临床组织学研究[J].中华临床医药,2003,4(2)：11-14.
[19]钱本文.无柄髋关节才是真微创[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2006,14(3)：174-176.
[20]Yu Bo. Ceramic-onceramic total hip replacement for treating avascular necrosis of the femoral head in 23 cases. Zhongguo Zuzhi Gongcheng Yanjiu yu Linchuang Kangfu. 2009,13(39):7780-7784.
[21]张征,李玲,马宁.高压氧综合治疗股骨头坏死的疗效观察[J].中国康复医学杂志,2009,10(24)：951-952.
[22]杨卫东.中医内外合治治疗股骨头缺血性坏死18例[J].陕西中医,2009,30,(3)：304-305.
[23]郑玉臣.中西医结合疗法治疗早期股骨头缺血性坏死68例临床观察[J].中国医药导报,2009,10(6)：209-210.
[24]宋萌,时素华,郑光华.针刀加牵引治疗无菌性股骨头坏死42例[J].陕西中医,2009,2(30)：204-205.
[25]肖红,林国文,徐徐等.介入疗法配合中药分型治疗股骨头缺血性坏死—附48例临床观察[J].中医正骨,2009,8(21)：31-34.
[26]张财,朱志敏,聂刚等.介入治疗无菌性股骨头坏死30例临床分析[J].吉林医学,2009,13(30)：1359.
[1]李子荣.科学诊断和治疗股骨头坏死[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2005,19(9)：685-686.
[2]Steinberg ME, HayHen GD,et,al, The" conservative" management of avascular necrosis of the femoral head.Bone Circulation. In:Arlet J, Ficat RP, Hunferford DS,eds,Baltimore:Williams &Wilkins,1984,334-337.
[3]全国股骨头无菌性坏死学术研讨会论文汇编.1992.北京.
[4]国际中西医结合骨科学术会议.2000.北京.
[5]陈卫衡,刘道兵,张强.从中医“治未病”的理论探讨继发性股骨头坏死的防治[J].中医杂志,2004,45(4)：317.
[6]郭效东,陈卫衡,赵永刚等.股骨头无菌性坏死三期辨证论治的临床研究(附50例报告).北京：全国股骨头无菌性坏死学术研讨会论文汇编,1992,3102313.
[7]陈卫衡,刘道兵,张洪美,等.股骨头坏死的三期四型辨证思路[J].中国中医基础医学杂志,2003,9(12)：51-52.
[8]Mont MA, Hungerford DS, Non-traumatic avascular necrosis of the femoral head[J]. J Bone and Joint Surg,1995(AM),77:459-474.
[9]ARCO(Association Research Circulation Osseous). Committee on Terminology and Classification[J]. ARCO News,1992,4:41-46.
[10]国家中医药管理局,《中医病证诊断疗效标准》[S].南京：南京大学出版社,1994：193.
[11]北京市中医管理局,《北京地区中医常见病证诊疗常规(二)》[S].北京：中国中医药出版社,2007：429-430.
[12]喻忠,王黎明,桂鉴超.全髋表面置换术治疗股骨头坏死[J].中国骨伤,2008,21(1)：35-37.
[13]Mont MA,Ragland PS,Etienne G. Core decompression of the femoral head for osteonecrosis using percutaneous multiple small-diameter drilling [J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res,2004,(429):131-138.
[14]Aldridge JM 3rd, Berend KR, Gunneson EE,et al. Free vascularized fibular grafting for t he t reatment of postcollapse osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Surgical technique[J]. J BoneJoint Surg Am,2004,86-A(Suppl 1):87-101.
[15]Lai KA,Shen WJ, Yang CY,et al. The use of alendronate to prevent early collapse of t he femoral head in patient s with nontraumatic osteonecrosis. A randomized clinical study[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2005,87:2155-2159.
[16]Nishii T, Sugano N,Miki H,et al. Does alendronate prevent collapse in osteonecrosis of the femoral head [J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res,2006,443:273-279.
[17]Ludwing J,Lauber S,Lauer HJ,et al. High energy Ext ra-corporeal shock wave therapy of femoral head necrosis in adult s[J]. Clin Ort hop,2001,387 (2):119-126.
[18]Lavernia CJ, Grieco FR. Osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J AM Acad Orthhop Surg,1999, 7:250-261.
[19]陈海涛,杨渊,马志芳等.全髋关节置换治疗股骨头缺血性坏死生存质量的随访研究[J] 广西医科大学学报2008,25(5)：756-757.
[20]黄强,李伟,张晖,等.全髋关节置换术后病人健康相关生存质量评估[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2007,15(6)：415-417.
[21]李雄,袁浩.袁浩教授对股骨头坏死中医药论治的学术思想[J].中国中医骨伤科杂志,1999,7(1)：61-62.
[22]刘少军,袁浩.股骨头坏死的中医临床思路与方法探讨[J].中国医药学报,2002,17(1)：44-47.
[23]王峰,周章武.丁锷教授诊治股骨头坏死学术经验[J].安徽中医学院学报.1999,18(5)：47-48.
[24]陈卫衡,张强,周卫,等.SARS后骨坏死早期中医证候规律初探[J].中国中医基础医学杂志,2006,12(2)：140-142.
[25]陈卫衡,刘道兵,张强,等.SARS后股骨头坏死的证候特点及治疗方案优化研究(上),中国中医药现代远程教育,2006,4(10)：55-56.
[26]陈卫衡.股骨头坏死“痰瘀同治”的理论基础[J].江苏中医药,2008,40(5)：3-4.
[27]李西要等.归芍活血通络汤治疗股骨头缺血性坏死110例[J].光明中医,2008,23(10)：1533.
[28]代跃洪.活血通痹汤治疗股骨头坏死临床观察—附：48例病例报告[J].成都中医药大学学报,2009,32(3)：31-32.
[29]滕加文.补肾活血汤治疗成人早期非创伤性股骨头坏死临床观察[J].中国中医药信息杂志,2009,7(9)：129-130.
[30]耿志辉,刘丙木,任振祥等.罂粟碱、尿激酶和低分子肝素介入治疗股骨头缺血坏死的临床应用[J].介入放射学杂志,2004,13(3)：269-270.
[31]张现嵩,王志刚,于春玲.股骨头缺血性坏死的介入治疗[J].当代医学,2009,15(17)：334.
[32]李清.股骨头缺血坏死介入治疗及近期疗效[J].中国骨伤.2009,22(10)：789-790.
[33]袁琳,邓佳鑫,闫峻.补肾活血中药治疗股骨头缺血性坏死62例临床观察[J].中国中医药信息杂志,2009,16(4)：76.
[34]张和平.骨血通丸治疗股骨头缺血性坏死204例临床观察[J].中医正骨,2008,20(8)：63.
[35]古纪欢,江振华.祛瘀生骨汤治疗早期成人股骨头缺血性坏死50例临床观察[J].海南医学,2009,20(1)：59、98.
[36]张剑慧.中西医结合治疗股骨头缺血性坏死35例临床观察[J].中医药导报,2009,15(4)：51-52.
[37]郑玉臣.中西医结合疗法治疗早期股骨头缺血性坏死68例临床观察[J].中国医药导报, 2009,6(10)：209-210.
[38]李红军,陈洪干,高书图等.病灶清除综合植骨治疗缺血性股骨头坏死[J].中国中医骨伤科杂志,2009,17(10)：56-57.
[39]凌沛学,梁虹,贺艳丽等.透明质酸钠在关节疾病中的应用[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2002,16(1)：1-3.
[2]林志炯,苏培基,伍中庆等.股骨头髓心减压加异体腓骨移植术治疗股骨头缺血性坏死[J].中国骨伤,2009,22(8)：628-630.
[3]陈跃平,王大伟,苏波等.髓芯减压配合中药治疗早期股骨头缺血性坏死[J].现代中西医结合杂志,2009,18(13)：1481-1482.
[4]杨晓凤,王红梅,许忆峰等.超选择性动脉干细胞移植治疗创伤性股骨头缺血性坏死的研究[J].中国医药生物技术,2009,4(4)：257-261.
[5]万宇,赵富胜,陈施展等.动脉灌注髓芯减压干细胞移植治疗股骨头坏死[J].实用骨科杂志,2009,15(3)：171-173.
[6]徐军,田军,许超蕊等.髓芯减压+自体外周血干细胞移植治疗早期股骨头缺血性坏死[J].临床骨科杂志,2008,1(1)：21-41.
[7]刘永灿,王无胜,付常清,等.股骨头缺血.性坏死的治疗[J].中国创伤骨科杂志,2001,3(3)：198-200.
[8]王西迅,诸葛天瑜,陈旭辉等.血管束植入治疗儿童股骨头坏死的远期疗效分析[J].中国骨伤,2006,19(5)：276-278.
[9]黄相杰,姜红江,刘德忠等.磷酸钙骨水泥/丹参缓释系统植入治疗股骨头缺血性坏死[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2008,22(3)：307-310.
[10]Tsao AK, Roberson JR, Christie MJ, et al. Biomechanical and clinical evaluations of a porous tantalum implant for the treatment of early stage osteonecrosis [J]. J Bone Joint Surg(Am),2005,2:22-27.
[11]Veillette CJ, Mehdian H, Schemitsch EH, et al. Survivorship analysis and radiographic outcome following tantalum rod insertion for osteonecrosis of the femoral head [J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2006,88(1):48-55.
[12]Shuler MS, Rooks MD, Roberson JR. Porous tantalum implant in early osteonecrosis of the hi p:preliminary report on operative, survival, and outcomes results. J Arthroplasty, 2007,22(1):26-31.
[13]陈坚锋,冯宗权,王全兵等.骨小梁钽金属棒微创治疗早期股骨头坏死的临床研究[J].临床医学工程,2009,16(8)：21-24.
[14]王上增,宋晓光,孙永强等.骨小梁金属重建棒植入治疗早期股骨头缺血性坏死的近期疗效[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2009,23(5)：562-565.
[15]王岩,王继芳,卢世璧等.网球支架置入治疗成人股骨头缺血性坏死[J].中华骨科杂志,2000,20(5)：295-298.
[16]柴伟,王岩,王志刚等.记忆合金网球治疗成人股骨头缺血性坏死[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2008,22(2)：239-241.
[17]陆永强,徐跃根,金才益等.无柄人工全髋关节置换治疗青壮年晚期股骨头缺血坏死11例[J].现代中西医结合杂志,2009,18(18)：2183-2184.
[18]钱齐荣,苟三怀,黄国富等.新型无柄人工髋关节生物固定的临床组织学研究[J].中华临床医药,2003,4(2)：11-14.
[19]钱本文.无柄髋关节才是真微创[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2006,14(3)：174-176.
[20]Yu Bo. Ceramic-onceramic total hip replacement for treating avascular necrosis of the femoral head in 23 cases. Zhongguo Zuzhi Gongcheng Yanjiu yu Linchuang Kangfu. 2009,13(39):7780-7784.
[21]张征,李玲,马宁.高压氧综合治疗股骨头坏死的疗效观察[J].中国康复医学杂志,2009,10(24)：951-952.
[22]杨卫东.中医内外合治治疗股骨头缺血性坏死18例[J].陕西中医,2009,30,(3)：304-305.
[23]郑玉臣.中西医结合疗法治疗早期股骨头缺血性坏死68例临床观察[J].中国医药导报,2009,10(6)：209-210.
[24]宋萌,时素华,郑光华.针刀加牵引治疗无菌性股骨头坏死42例[J].陕西中医,2009,2(30)：204-205.
[25]肖红,林国文,徐徐等.介入疗法配合中药分型治疗股骨头缺血性坏死—附48例临床观察[J].中医正骨,2009,8(21)：31-34.
[26]张财,朱志敏,聂刚等.介入治疗无菌性股骨头坏死30例临床分析[J].吉林医学,2009,13(30)：1359.
[1]李子荣.科学诊断和治疗股骨头坏死[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2005,19(9)：685-686.
[2]Steinberg ME, HayHen GD,et,al, The" conservative" management of avascular necrosis of the femoral head.Bone Circulation. In:Arlet J, Ficat RP, Hunferford DS,eds,Baltimore:Williams &Wilkins,1984,334-337.
[3]全国股骨头无菌性坏死学术研讨会论文汇编.1992.北京.
[4]国际中西医结合骨科学术会议.2000.北京.
[5]陈卫衡,刘道兵,张强.从中医“治未病”的理论探讨继发性股骨头坏死的防治[J].中医杂志,2004,45(4)：317.
[6]郭效东,陈卫衡,赵永刚等.股骨头无菌性坏死三期辨证论治的临床研究(附50例报告).北京：全国股骨头无菌性坏死学术研讨会论文汇编,1992,3102313.
[7]陈卫衡,刘道兵,张洪美,等.股骨头坏死的三期四型辨证思路[J].中国中医基础医学杂志,2003,9(12)：51-52.
[8]Mont MA, Hungerford DS, Non-traumatic avascular necrosis of the femoral head[J]. J Bone and Joint Surg,1995(AM),77:459-474.
[9]ARCO(Association Research Circulation Osseous). Committee on Terminology and Classification[J]. ARCO News,1992,4:41-46.
[10]国家中医药管理局,《中医病证诊断疗效标准》[S].南京：南京大学出版社,1994：193.
[11]北京市中医管理局,《北京地区中医常见病证诊疗常规(二)》[S].北京：中国中医药出版社,2007：429-430.
[12]喻忠,王黎明,桂鉴超.全髋表面置换术治疗股骨头坏死[J].中国骨伤,2008,21(1)：35-37.
[13]Mont MA,Ragland PS,Etienne G. Core decompression of the femoral head for osteonecrosis using percutaneous multiple small-diameter drilling [J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res,2004,(429):131-138.
[14]Aldridge JM 3rd, Berend KR, Gunneson EE,et al. Free vascularized fibular grafting for t he t reatment of postcollapse osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Surgical technique[J]. J BoneJoint Surg Am,2004,86-A(Suppl 1):87-101.
[15]Lai KA,Shen WJ, Yang CY,et al. The use of alendronate to prevent early collapse of t he femoral head in patient s with nontraumatic osteonecrosis. A randomized clinical study[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am,2005,87:2155-2159.
[16]Nishii T, Sugano N,Miki H,et al. Does alendronate prevent collapse in osteonecrosis of the femoral head [J]. Clin Orthop Relat Res,2006,443:273-279.
[17]Ludwing J,Lauber S,Lauer HJ,et al. High energy Ext ra-corporeal shock wave therapy of femoral head necrosis in adult s[J]. Clin Ort hop,2001,387 (2):119-126.
[18]Lavernia CJ, Grieco FR. Osteonecrosis of the femoral head. J AM Acad Orthhop Surg,1999, 7:250-261.
[19]陈海涛,杨渊,马志芳等.全髋关节置换治疗股骨头缺血性坏死生存质量的随访研究[J] 广西医科大学学报2008,25(5)：756-757.
[20]黄强,李伟,张晖,等.全髋关节置换术后病人健康相关生存质量评估[J].中国矫形外科杂志,2007,15(6)：415-417.
[21]李雄,袁浩.袁浩教授对股骨头坏死中医药论治的学术思想[J].中国中医骨伤科杂志,1999,7(1)：61-62.
[22]刘少军,袁浩.股骨头坏死的中医临床思路与方法探讨[J].中国医药学报,2002,17(1)：44-47.
[23]王峰,周章武.丁锷教授诊治股骨头坏死学术经验[J].安徽中医学院学报.1999,18(5)：47-48.
[24]陈卫衡,张强,周卫,等.SARS后骨坏死早期中医证候规律初探[J].中国中医基础医学杂志,2006,12(2)：140-142.
[25]陈卫衡,刘道兵,张强,等.SARS后股骨头坏死的证候特点及治疗方案优化研究(上),中国中医药现代远程教育,2006,4(10)：55-56.
[26]陈卫衡.股骨头坏死“痰瘀同治”的理论基础[J].江苏中医药,2008,40(5)：3-4.
[27]李西要等.归芍活血通络汤治疗股骨头缺血性坏死110例[J].光明中医,2008,23(10)：1533.
[28]代跃洪.活血通痹汤治疗股骨头坏死临床观察—附：48例病例报告[J].成都中医药大学学报,2009,32(3)：31-32.
[29]滕加文.补肾活血汤治疗成人早期非创伤性股骨头坏死临床观察[J].中国中医药信息杂志,2009,7(9)：129-130.
[30]耿志辉,刘丙木,任振祥等.罂粟碱、尿激酶和低分子肝素介入治疗股骨头缺血坏死的临床应用[J].介入放射学杂志,2004,13(3)：269-270.
[31]张现嵩,王志刚,于春玲.股骨头缺血性坏死的介入治疗[J].当代医学,2009,15(17)：334.
[32]李清.股骨头缺血坏死介入治疗及近期疗效[J].中国骨伤.2009,22(10)：789-790.
[33]袁琳,邓佳鑫,闫峻.补肾活血中药治疗股骨头缺血性坏死62例临床观察[J].中国中医药信息杂志,2009,16(4)：76.
[34]张和平.骨血通丸治疗股骨头缺血性坏死204例临床观察[J].中医正骨,2008,20(8)：63.
[35]古纪欢,江振华.祛瘀生骨汤治疗早期成人股骨头缺血性坏死50例临床观察[J].海南医学,2009,20(1)：59、98.
[36]张剑慧.中西医结合治疗股骨头缺血性坏死35例临床观察[J].中医药导报,2009,15(4)：51-52.
[37]郑玉臣.中西医结合疗法治疗早期股骨头缺血性坏死68例临床观察[J].中国医药导报, 2009,6(10)：209-210.
[38]李红军,陈洪干,高书图等.病灶清除综合植骨治疗缺血性股骨头坏死[J].中国中医骨伤科杂志,2009,17(10)：56-57.
[39]凌沛学,梁虹,贺艳丽等.透明质酸钠在关节疾病中的应用[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2002,16(1)：1-3.