手指部分缺失两种重建方法的疗效比较  

Comparing the treatment effects of two kinds of reconstructed methods in finger scarcity

作　　者：朱小波[1] 宋朝骏[1] 袁启智[2] 黄硕麟[2] 陈玉林[3] 

机构地区：[1]上海市第七人民医院烧伤疤痕手功能治疗中心,上海200137 [2]上海市第一人民医院,上海200080 [3]上海市长海医院,上海200433

出　　处：《上海预防医学》2000年第7期323-324,共2页Shanghai Journal of Preventive Medicine

基　　金：上海市浦东新区特色学科课题

摘　　要：比较手指缺失两种重建方法的疗效。 [方法 ]　以 1996年以前用皮管植骨法重建手指 10例。1996年后用拔伸延长术重建手指 5例。 [结果 ]　术后随访 6月 ,拔伸延长术 5例 ,在外形、皮肤的感觉及血运方面明显优于皮管植骨法。 [结论 ]　在手指重建时 ,在基层单位应首选拔伸牵引延长术。Objective] To compare the treatment effects of two kinds of reconstructed methods in finger scarcity partly.[Method] before 1996, we reconstructed finger scarcity with tubal flap of bone-transplantation for 10 cases. From 1996 to this year, fingers were reconstructed by using the method of extension in 5 cases.[Results] following 6 months after operation, the method of extension in 5 cases was much better than the tubal flap of bone-transplantation in feeling of jagged, skin and blood transport.[Conclusion] the skeleton hospital should choose extension first when we carry through the reconstruction of the fingers.

关 键 词：手指 延长术 重建方法 皮管 指部 疗效比较 拔伸 部分缺失 结论 基层单位 

分 类 号：R658[医药卫生—外科学]