Fan Xinmiao, Niu Xiaomin, Wang Yibei, Chen Yu, Fan Yue, Wang Jian, Chen Xiaowei
Department of Otolaryngology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital Beijing, PR China.
Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital Beijing, PR China.
Am J Transl Res. 2019 Jun 15;11(6):3771-3778. eCollection 2019.
To confirm the advantage of 3D template over the traditional 2D template in auricle reconstruction. Two hundred patients with Marx III unilateral microtia treated in our hospital during the last four years were included in this retrospective study. They were divided into two groups according to the surgery which was assisted by 2D or 3D template. The outcome was evaluated 6 months after the surgery in the following aspects: the mean surgical time, the similarity rate for ear size, nasal-tip to tragus length and auriculocephalic angle, the patient's satisfaction and the quality of life after surgery. The surgical time for the 3D group was 3.2 ± 1.9 hours, significantly shorter than that for the 2D group (4.1 ± 3.7 hours; P < 0.05). The similarity rates between both sides were 91.24 ± 1.71%, 96.46 ± 2.51%, and 88.15 ± 10.20% respectively for ear size, nasal tip-tragus length, and auriculocephalic angle in the 3D group. While the corresponding values in the 2D group were smaller and were 87.47 ± 3.66%, 90.16 ± 3.27%, and 78.25 ± 1.26% respectively. The difference was significant in nasal tip-tragus length and auriculocephalic angle (P < 0.05), but not for ear size (P > 0.05). The patients' satisfaction was better in the 3D group. The averaged GCBI score was 65.6 ± 13.2 in the 3D group, which was significantly higher than the value of 55.3 ± 16.8 in the 2D group (P < 0.05). The use of 3D template resulted in a better outcome in the auricle reconstruction surgery.
为证实3D模板在耳廓重建中相对于传统2D模板的优势。本回顾性研究纳入了我院在过去四年中治疗的200例马克思III型单侧小耳畸形患者。根据手术所辅助使用的是2D模板还是3D模板,将他们分为两组。术后6个月从以下方面评估结果:平均手术时间、耳朵大小相似度、鼻尖至耳屏长度及耳颅角相似度、患者满意度以及术后生活质量。3D组的手术时间为3.2±1.9小时,显著短于2D组(4.1±3.7小时;P<0.05)。3D组两侧耳朵大小、鼻尖至耳屏长度及耳颅角的相似度分别为91.24±1.71%、96.46±2.51%和88.15±10.20%。而2D组的相应值较小,分别为87.47±3.66%、90.16±3.27%和78.25±1.26%。鼻尖至耳屏长度及耳颅角的差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),但耳朵大小方面差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3D组患者的满意度更高。3D组的平均GCBI评分为65.6±13.2,显著高于2D组的55.3±16.8(P<0.05)。3D模板的使用在耳廓重建手术中取得了更好的效果。