Suppr超能文献

小耳畸形的软组织覆盖的耳廓再造:皮瓣袋法与扩张法。

Auricular reconstruction in microtia for soft tissue coverage: Flap pocket method versus expansion method.

机构信息

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 639 Zhizaoju Road, Shanghai, 200011, China.

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, 639 Zhizaoju Road, Shanghai, 200011, China.

出版信息

Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2022 Jan;152:110987. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2021.110987. Epub 2021 Nov 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Auricular reconstruction is the sole therapy for external ear deformities. The flap pocket method and the expansion method are currently the two principal auricular reconstruction methods in microtia. The efficacy and safety of these two surgical techniques has long been a subject of controversy, bedeviled by a lack of objective comparative evidence.

METHODS

The authors searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases for clinical studies on auricular reconstruction in microtia updated to Jan 1, 2021. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the major outcomes for patient convenience, incidence of complications and postoperative patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of twenty-two articles involving 7963 patients were included in this study. Nine studies involving 2475 patients concerned the flap pocket method and thirteen studies involving 5488 patients concerned the expansion method. The pooled patient satisfaction rate was higher using the flap pocket method than the expansion method (90.5% versus 83.3%, p = 0.000). Total complication incidence was lower using the flap pocket method than with the expansion method (6.8% versus 9.5%, p = 0.000). There were zero expander-related complications using the flap pocket method, but a 4% complication incidence using the expansion method. The total treatment period for the flap pocket method was 5.57 ± 1.13 months, much shorter than the 10.75 ± 3.54 months (p < 0.05) of the expansion method.

CONCLUSIONS

In microtia, the flap pocket method scores higher on patient satisfaction, while having lower post-operative complications and a shorter treatment period compared with the expansion method.

摘要

背景

耳廓再造术是治疗外耳畸形的唯一方法。目前,小耳畸形的主要耳廓再造方法有两种,即皮瓣袋法和扩张法。这两种手术技术的疗效和安全性一直存在争议,缺乏客观的对比证据。

方法

作者检索了 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中截至 2021 年 1 月 1 日更新的小耳畸形耳廓再造的临床研究,进行了荟萃分析,以评估患者便利性、并发症发生率和术后患者满意度等主要结局。

结果

本研究共纳入 22 篇文章,涉及 7963 例患者。其中 9 篇文章(2475 例患者)涉及皮瓣袋法,13 篇文章(5488 例患者)涉及扩张法。皮瓣袋法的患者满意度高于扩张法(90.5%比 83.3%,p=0.000)。皮瓣袋法总并发症发生率低于扩张法(6.8%比 9.5%,p=0.000)。皮瓣袋法无扩张器相关并发症,而扩张法的并发症发生率为 4%。皮瓣袋法的总治疗期为 5.57±1.13 个月,明显短于扩张法的 10.75±3.54 个月(p<0.05)。

结论

在小耳畸形中,与扩张法相比,皮瓣袋法在患者满意度方面更高,术后并发症更少,治疗周期更短。

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