Oberg K C, Evans M L, Nguyen T, Peckham N H, Kirsch W M, Hardesty R A
Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University and Medical Center, California 92350, USA.
Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1995 Mar;32(2):129-37. doi: 10.1597/1545-1569_1995_032_0130_iroscd_2.3.co_2.
We compared the difference between a nonpenetrating silver microclip and suture on wound healing, inflammatory response, and application time in the repair of surgically created standardized unilateral cleft lip type defects in fetal mice. Excellent lip continuity and dermal reconstitution were achieved by both methods of repair. Furthermore, collagen accumulation did not occur. Occasional mononuclear cells were seen around sutured repairs in contrast to microclipped repairs. The most significant difference, however, was in application time with the microclip requiring an average of 7 seconds (+/- 2) compared to 90 seconds (+/- 15) for suture. We conclude that the microclip offers distinct advantages for intrauterine cleft lip repair: (1) nonpenetrating tissue approximation; (2) less inflammatory response than suture; (3) technically more rapid and less difficult to apply than suture; and (4) can be utilized more readily than suture for endoscopic approaches limiting the risks of fetal surgery for both the mother and the fetus.
我们比较了非穿透性银质微型夹和缝线在胎鼠手术制造的标准化单侧唇裂型缺损修复中对伤口愈合、炎症反应及应用时间的差异。两种修复方法均实现了良好的唇部连续性和真皮重建。此外，未出现胶原积聚。与微型夹修复相比，缝线修复周围偶尔可见单核细胞。然而，最显著的差异在于应用时间，微型夹平均需要7秒（±2），而缝线需要90秒（±15）。我们得出结论，微型夹在宫内唇裂修复中具有明显优势：（1）非穿透性组织对合；（2）炎症反应比缝线少；（3）技术上比缝线更快且应用难度更小；（4）比缝线更易于用于内镜手术，可降低对母亲和胎儿的胎儿手术风险。
