实用手外科杂志
實用手外科雜誌
실용수외과잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF PRACTICAL HAND SURGERY
2014年
4期
407-409
,共3页
薛俊红%陈惠敏%张艳敏%范华波%李浩%胡娟
薛俊紅%陳惠敏%張豔敏%範華波%李浩%鬍娟
설준홍%진혜민%장염민%범화파%리호%호연
手指缺损%修复%皮瓣%比较%远期疗效
手指缺損%脩複%皮瓣%比較%遠期療效
수지결손%수복%피판%비교%원기료효
Finger defect%Repair%Flaps%Compare%Long-term results
目的:通过回顾性随访对修复指端(腹)缺损的同指三种皮瓣中远期疗效进行对比,为指端(腹)缺损创面的皮瓣修复提供最佳选择。方法将修复指端(腹)缺损的同指三种皮瓣分为3组:组1为同指顺行指动脉神经蒂皮瓣;组2为中节指动脉背侧支筋膜蒂皮瓣;组3为近节指背侧指动脉皮瓣。每组30例进行平均4.5年的随访。通过对皮瓣的满意度等9项指标进行对比。结果患者对三组的疗效均较满意,组1和组2、组3在实体综合感觉、两点辨别觉、畏寒病例数、出汗、供区情况方面有明显差异,组2和组3在畏寒病例数方面有差异。三组其他方面无明显差异。结论三种同指皮瓣均是修复指端(腹)缺损的可选方法,效果良好。综合各项指标对比,推荐按同指顺行指动脉神经蒂皮瓣→中节指动脉背侧支筋膜蒂皮瓣→近节指背指动脉皮瓣的顺序选择。
目的:通過迴顧性隨訪對脩複指耑(腹)缺損的同指三種皮瓣中遠期療效進行對比,為指耑(腹)缺損創麵的皮瓣脩複提供最佳選擇。方法將脩複指耑(腹)缺損的同指三種皮瓣分為3組:組1為同指順行指動脈神經蒂皮瓣;組2為中節指動脈揹側支觔膜蒂皮瓣;組3為近節指揹側指動脈皮瓣。每組30例進行平均4.5年的隨訪。通過對皮瓣的滿意度等9項指標進行對比。結果患者對三組的療效均較滿意,組1和組2、組3在實體綜閤感覺、兩點辨彆覺、畏寒病例數、齣汗、供區情況方麵有明顯差異,組2和組3在畏寒病例數方麵有差異。三組其他方麵無明顯差異。結論三種同指皮瓣均是脩複指耑(腹)缺損的可選方法,效果良好。綜閤各項指標對比,推薦按同指順行指動脈神經蒂皮瓣→中節指動脈揹側支觔膜蒂皮瓣→近節指揹指動脈皮瓣的順序選擇。
목적:통과회고성수방대수복지단(복)결손적동지삼충피판중원기료효진행대비,위지단(복)결손창면적피판수복제공최가선택。방법장수복지단(복)결손적동지삼충피판분위3조:조1위동지순행지동맥신경체피판;조2위중절지동맥배측지근막체피판;조3위근절지배측지동맥피판。매조30례진행평균4.5년적수방。통과대피판적만의도등9항지표진행대비。결과환자대삼조적료효균교만의,조1화조2、조3재실체종합감각、량점변별각、외한병례수、출한、공구정황방면유명현차이,조2화조3재외한병례수방면유차이。삼조기타방면무명현차이。결론삼충동지피판균시수복지단(복)결손적가선방법,효과량호。종합각항지표대비,추천안동지순행지동맥신경체피판→중절지동맥배측지근막체피판→근절지배지동맥피판적순서선택。
Objective To compare the repairment effect of digit tip injury and pulp loss by three kinds of pedicle skin flap in long-term. Then the result will provide the best choice for digit tip injury and pulp loss. Methods The cases which had the digit tip injury and pulp loss repaired by two types of digital artery flapwere divided into 3 group, group 1 was anterograde digital artery flaps. Group 2 was pedicle of dorsal digital artery flaps of middle segment, group 3 was pedicel of dorsal digital artery flap of Proximal finger. 30 cases of each group were followed up for 4.5 years. A contrastive analysis of 9 index were made. This comparison consists of the satisfaction of the flaps. Results All patients were satisfactory with the effect, There was difference between group 1 and group 2 andgroup 3. The difference consist of stereognosis, two point discrim-pination, cases of chills, sweat, appearance of the donor sites. Group 2 and group 3 had difference in cases of chills. No significant difference between the three groups in other aspects. Conclusion These are good methods for using 3 different flaps to repair digit injury and pulp loss in long period. Good results coverd all the groups. Comparison of comprehensive indexes, anterograde digital artery flaps is the first choice of treatment then the pedicel of dorsal digital artery flaps of middle segment, at last pedicel of dorsal digital artery flap of Proximal finger.