【摘要】 目的 探讨康复宣教与训练等干预手段对股骨干骨折患者围手术期的影响。 方法 2010年6月－2011年3月收治股骨干骨折患者90例，其中男48例，女42例；年龄17~58岁，平均38岁。开放性骨折28例，闭合性骨折62例。股骨骨折部位:上1/3骨折33例，中1/3骨折35例，下1/3骨折20例，多段骨折2例。横形骨折20例，斜形骨折30例，粉碎性骨折40例。将90例患者随机分为康复组（46例）和对照组（44例）。对照组采用骨科术前常规处理，康复组采用骨科术前常规处理加康复宣教与训练。 结果 康复组住院时间为（5.35±1.27） d，对照组为（7.67±1.85） d，两组比较差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）。 康复组治疗后发生并发症7例，对照组16例，康复组并发症发生率（15.2%）明显低于对照组（36.4%），差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）。治疗后5 d，康复组疗效获优35例，良6例，可3例，差2例，优良率89.1%；对照组获优25例，良5例，可12例，差2例，优良率68.2%；两组疗效比较差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）。 结论 康复宣教与训练能预防与改善股骨干骨折围手术期卧床引起的并发症，减轻患者腿部疼痛及肿胀，缩短围手术期时间，使患者能尽早手术，加快住院床位周转，提高患者生活质量。【Abstract】 Objective To explore the effects of rehabilitation education and training interventions on perioperative patients with femoral shaft fractures. Methods A total of 90 patients with femoral shaft fractures were selected from June 2010 to March 2011, including 48 males and 42 females aged from 17 to 58 years (mean 38 years). In these 90 patients, open fracture was in 28 and closed fracture was in 62. Fracture site: upper 1/3 fracture was in 33, middle 1/3 fracture was in 35, lower 1/3 fracture was in 20 and multiple fractures was in 2. There were transverse fractures in 20 patients, oblique fractures in 30 patients and comminuted fractures in 40 patients. All of the patients were randomly divided into experimental group (46 patients) and control group (44 patients). The patients in the control group underwent the routine treatment before the orthopedic surgery; besides the routine treatment, the patients in the experimental group were given the rehabilitation education and training before the orthopedic surgery. Results The hospital duration in the rehabilitation group was (5.35±1.27) days while in the control group was (7.67±1.85) days, the difference was statistically significant (Plt;0.05). There were 7 cases who had complications in rehabilitation group compared with 16 patients in the control group; the incidence of the complications in the rehabilitation group (15.2%) was significantly lower than that in the control group (36.4%) (Plt;0.05). After the treatment for 5 days, the therapeutic effect in rehabilitation group were excellent in 35 cases, good in 6 cases, middle in 3 cases and poor in 2 cases (with the good rate of 89.1%); while in the control group were excellent in 25 cases, good in 5 cases, middle in 12 cases and poor in 2 cases (with the good rate of 68.2%); the difference was significant between the two groups (Plt;0.05). Conclusion Rehabilitation education and training could prevent the perioperative complications in patients with femoral shaft fracture, decrease the pain and edema, speed up the turnover of hospital beds, and improve the patients’ quality of life.