Suppr超能文献

原发性腭裂修复中连续缝合与间断缝合的比较。

Continuous Versus Interrupted Sutures for Primary Cleft Palate Repair.

作者信息

Fayyaz Ghulam Qadir, Gill Nauman Ahmad, Alam Iftikhar, Chaudary Ayesha, Aslam Muhammad, Ishaaq Irfan, Hameed Abdul, Ganatra Ashraf, Sheikh Tahir, Bilal Muhammad

机构信息

Services Institute of Medical Sciences, Lahore.

Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore.

出版信息

Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 Nov 13;6(11):e2001. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002001. eCollection 2018 Nov.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cleft palate is a common congenital problem. It is traditionally surgically repaired with interrupted sutures between the ages of 6 and 18 months, with the aim of achieving closure of both nasal and oral layers. In various fields of surgery, continuous, rather than interrupted, sutures are the norm. There are no reports, however, of continuous suture repair for cleft palate.

METHODS

A comparative study was designed at Clapp Hospital Lahore, to compare the effectiveness of 2 techniques. A total of 152 patients were included in the study over a period of 3 years. Per-operatively, the duration of surgery (time for nasal and oral layer closure) and the number of suture materials used were noted and compared between the 2 groups. Postoperatively, we compared the rate of wound dehiscence and fistula formation between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Out of 152 patients, 84 patients were operated on by continuous technique and 68 patients by interrupted technique. The mean duration of nasal layer closure in group A was 7.08 minutes, whereas that in group B was 11.50 minutes. The mean number of sutures required for the continuous suture group was 2.12, whereas that for the interrupted suture group was 4.59 ( < 0.05). There were no differences seen in either of the 2 postoperative outcomes compared in this study.

CONCLUSION

A continuous closure technique can be utilized in palate repair, as it us more cost-effective and time-efficient.

摘要

背景

腭裂是一种常见的先天性问题。传统上,腭裂在6至18个月大时通过间断缝合进行手术修复,目的是实现鼻腔和口腔层的闭合。在外科手术的各个领域,连续缝合而非间断缝合是常规做法。然而,尚无关于腭裂连续缝合修复的报道。

方法

拉合尔克拉普医院设计了一项对比研究,以比较两种技术的有效性。在3年的时间里,共有152例患者纳入该研究。术中,记录并比较两组手术时间(鼻腔和口腔层闭合时间)以及使用的缝合材料数量。术后,比较两组伤口裂开和瘘管形成的发生率。

结果

152例患者中,84例采用连续技术手术,68例采用间断技术手术。A组鼻腔层闭合的平均时间为7.08分钟,而B组为11.50分钟。连续缝合组所需缝线的平均数量为2.12,而间断缝合组为4.59(<0.05)。本研究比较的两项术后结果均未发现差异。

结论

连续闭合技术可用于腭裂修复,因为它更具成本效益且效率更高。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f453/6414111/905808249553/gox-6-e2001-g002.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验