Keilani C, Baus A, Tick S, Sahel J-A, Boumendil J
Department IV, facial and oculoplastic surgery unit, Quinze-Vingts national center, 28, rue de Charenton, 75571 Paris, France; Faculty of medicine Pierre-et-Marie-Curie, Sorbonne University, Paris VI, 91-105, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France; Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 75004 Paris, France.
Department of plastic surgery, Percy military hospital, 101, avenue H.-Barbusse, 92141 Clamart, France.
Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2019 Aug;64(4):351-361. doi: 10.1016/j.anplas.2019.01.003. Epub 2019 Feb 18.
To compare the effectiveness and the safety of three eye reconstruction techniques with porous bioceramic implantation in facial surgery: the "four petals" eye evisceration (EE) technique, the "russian doll" EE technique and the enucleation with "on-the-table" evisceration technique.
Retrospective review of patients who underwent surgical orbit reconstruction with primary placement of a porous bioceramic orbital implant using three techniques at Quinze-Vingts National Center (Paris, France). We compared outcomes of three surgical orbit reconstruction techniques: the "four petal" EE technique, the "russian doll" EE technique and the enucleation with "on-the-table" evisceration technique. The primary endpoint was to determine the rate of implant exposure and the facial cosmetic result during the first year after surgery for each technique. The mean of the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS) after surgery at day 1 was also a primary endpoint. In addition, data such as analgesic intake and rate of revision surgery were compared for each technique.
One hundred and ten patients were included: 70 patients in the "four petals" procedure group, 31 in the "on-the-table" procedure group and 9 in the "russian doll" procedure group. NRS pain at day 1 was statistically significantly lower in the "four petals" procedure group 0.9 [standard deviation (SD)] (1.8) and in the "russian doll" procedure group 1 (1.7) than in the "on-the-table" procedure group 2.5 (2.4) (P=0.001). Implant exposure was statistically significantly lower in the "four petals" procedure group (2.9%) and in the "on-the-table" procedure group (3.2%) when compared to the "russian doll" procedure group (22.2%) (P=0.03). Rate of revision surgery was lower in the "four petals" procedure group (11.5%) than in the "russian doll" procedure group (33.3%) and the "on-the-table" procedure group (22.6%). "russian doll" evisceration procedure group had the highest orbital lipofilling rate due to the highest rate of enophthalmos. Therefore, the cosmetic result was better in the "four petals" and the "on-the-table" procedure group.
The "four petals" EE technique for surgical eye and orbital reconstruction seems to be a method that reduce implant extrusion, postoperative pain and improve facial esthetic result.
比较三种眼部重建技术联合多孔生物陶瓷植入在面部手术中的有效性和安全性,这三种技术分别为“四瓣”眼球内容剜除术(EE)、“俄罗斯套娃”EE技术以及“台上”眼球内容剜除的眼球摘除术。
对在法国巴黎万森纳国家中心采用三种技术进行多孔生物陶瓷眼眶植入物一期植入的眼眶重建手术患者进行回顾性研究。我们比较了三种眼眶重建手术技术的结果:“四瓣”EE技术、“俄罗斯套娃”EE技术以及“台上”眼球内容剜除的眼球摘除术。主要终点是确定每种技术术后第一年的植入物暴露率和面部美容效果。术后第1天数字疼痛评分量表(NRS)的平均值也是主要终点。此外,还比较了每种技术的镇痛药物摄入量和翻修手术率等数据。
共纳入110例患者:“四瓣”手术组70例,“台上”手术组31例,“俄罗斯套娃”手术组9例。“四瓣”手术组术后第1天的NRS疼痛评分在统计学上显著低于“台上”手术组,“四瓣”手术组为0.9标准差(SD),“俄罗斯套娃”手术组为1(1.7),“台上”手术组为2.5(2.4)(P = 0.001)。与“俄罗斯套娃”手术组(22.2%)相比,“四瓣”手术组(2.9%)和“台上”手术组(3.2%)的植入物暴露在统计学上显著更低(P = 0.03)。“四瓣”手术组的翻修手术率(11.5%)低于“俄罗斯套娃”手术组(33.3%)和“台上”手术组(22.6%)。“俄罗斯套娃”眼球内容剜除术组因眼球内陷率最高,眼眶脂肪填充率也最高。因此,“四瓣”和“台上”手术组的美容效果更好。
用于手术性眼部和眼眶重建的“四瓣”EE技术似乎是一种能减少植入物挤出、减轻术后疼痛并改善面部美学效果的方法。