Li Datao, Xu Feng, Zhang Ruhong, Zhang Qun, Xu Zhicheng, Li Yiyuan, Wang Cheng, Li Tianya
Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
From the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Aug;138(2):307e-316e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002408.
Although a standard classification system and corresponding reconstruction methods are well described for microtia, establishing a classification system and corresponding surgical strategies for traumatic ear defects is difficult because the size, shape, and local skin conditions of each defect differ considerably. In this article, the authors describe a useful new classification system and corresponding surgical approaches.
Ear defects were classified into four types according to defect size and surrounding skin conditions. Defects in which the postauricular skin is of good quality are classified as types I, II, and III. The rest are type IV defects. Four ears (type I defects) were reconstructed using conchal cartilage and posterior auricular flaps. In 51 ears, costal cartilage and posterior auricular flaps were used for single-stage (type II defects, n = 31) or two-stage (type III defects, n = 20) reconstructions. In five instances of severe posterior auricular cutaneous scarring (type IV defects), temporoparietal fascial flaps were created to cover costal cartilage frameworks.
Sixty subjects with traumatic partial ear defects were followed for 6 months to 6 years. Most (n = 55) were satisfied with their results. Two patients complained of an unnatural junction between the graft framework and residual ear stump. One was dissatisfied with the reduced ear size, caused by improper fixation and skin flap contraction. Another developed minor framework exposure because of skin necrosis, which healed with conservative management.
Using our new classification system for partial traumatic ear defects based on defect size and contiguous skin condition, the corresponding surgical repair approach was applied consistently, yielding acceptable results and few complications.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
虽然对于小耳畸形已有标准的分类系统及相应的重建方法,但由于创伤性耳缺损的大小、形状及局部皮肤状况差异很大,因此很难建立针对创伤性耳缺损的分类系统及相应的手术策略。在本文中,作者描述了一种实用的新分类系统及相应的手术方法。
根据缺损大小及周围皮肤状况将耳缺损分为四种类型。耳后皮肤质量良好的缺损归为I、II和III型。其余为IV型缺损。4只耳朵(I型缺损)采用耳甲软骨和耳后皮瓣进行重建。在51只耳朵中,肋软骨和耳后皮瓣用于一期(II型缺损,n = 31)或二期(III型缺损,n = 20)重建。在5例严重耳后皮肤瘢痕形成(IV型缺损)的病例中,制作颞顶筋膜瓣覆盖肋软骨支架。
60例创伤性部分耳缺损患者随访6个月至6年。大多数(n = 55)对结果满意。2例患者抱怨移植支架与残余耳残端之间的连接不自然。1例因固定不当和皮瓣收缩导致耳朵尺寸减小而不满意。另1例因皮肤坏死导致轻微的支架外露,经保守治疗后愈合。
使用我们基于缺损大小和相邻皮肤状况的创伤性部分耳缺损新分类系统,相应的手术修复方法得到了一致应用,取得了可接受的结果且并发症较少。
临床问题/证据水平:治疗性,IV级。