Zhao Yingjie, Tang Qiang, Zhang Jiaxian, Fu Danlan, Yin Jiajing, Wang Hailin, Li Haoyang, Guo Zehong, Fan Zhexiang, Miao Yong
Department of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, Guangdong, China.
Surgery Department of Burn Plastics and Wound Repair, Affiliated Hospital of Youjiang Medical University for Nationalities, Baise, 533000, Guangxi, China.
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 May 2. doi: 10.1007/s00266-025-04871-3.
Based on the differences in the procedures of recipient site creation and graft placement, hair transplantation implantation techniques can be classified into premade incisions (PI) and stick and place (S&P). However, limited studies have systematically compared their clinical outcomes.
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 191 Chinese patients (95 in the PI group and 96 in the S&P group) from four hospitals, undergoing follicular unit excision between August 2022 and August 2024. Intraoperative metrics such as graft density and implantation speed were compared, while postoperative evaluations included the maximum shedding rate, the survival rate, the complication rate, and patient satisfaction. Additionally, junior surgeons practicing one technique on simulation models were assessed for a learning curve.
The PI group demonstrated faster implantation speed (719.3 ± 50.7 vs. 553.9 ± 51.9 FUs/(hourN), p < 0.001) and a shorter learning curve (7.3 ± 0.2 vs. 8.5 ± 0.2 FUs/(hourday), p < 0.001). However, the S&P group achieved higher graft density (p = 0.003), lower maximum shedding rate (95.9 ± 2.9% vs. 70.3 ± 2.5%, p < 0.001), and higher patient satisfaction (p = 0.023). No significant differences were observed in the survival rate and the complication rate.
This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the clinical outcomes of PI and S&P techniques in Chinese populations. While PI demonstrates procedural efficiency and a simplified learning curve, S&P is associated with enhanced precision and superior patient satisfaction.
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
根据受区创建和毛囊移植放置程序的差异，毛发移植植入技术可分为预制切口（PI）和粘贴式（S&P）。然而，系统比较它们临床效果的研究有限。
对2022年8月至2024年8月期间在四家医院接受毛囊单位提取术的191例中国患者（PI组95例，S&P组96例）进行回顾性分析。比较术中指标如毛囊移植密度和植入速度，术后评估包括最大脱落率、成活率、并发症发生率和患者满意度。此外，评估在模拟模型上练习一种技术的初级外科医生的学习曲线。
PI组植入速度更快（719.3±50.7对553.9±51.9毛囊单位/（小时医生），p<0.001）且学习曲线更短（7.3±0.2对8.5±0.2毛囊单位/（小时天），p<0.001）。然而，S&P组实现了更高的毛囊移植密度（p = 0.003）、更低的最大脱落率（95.9±2.9%对70.3±2.5%，p<0.001）和更高的患者满意度（p = 0.023）。在成活率和并发症发生率方面未观察到显著差异。
本研究对中国人群中PI和S&P技术的临床效果进行了全面评估。虽然PI显示出手术效率和简化的学习曲线，但S&P与更高的精度和更好的患者满意度相关。
证据级别III：本期刊要求作者为每篇文章指定证据级别。有关这些循证医学评级的完整描述，请参阅目录或作者在线指南www.springer.com/00266 。
