两种补片修补TRAM皮瓣切取后腹壁缺损的临床效果比较  

Comparison of PPM and e-PTFE mesh for repairing abdominal wall defect after harvesting the free TRAM flap

作　　者：杨红岩[1] 赵玉明[1] 晏晓青[1] 曾玮[1] 李丹[1] 刘岱[1] 王白石[1] 张元文[1] 徐军[1] 

机构地区：[1]解放军总医院外科临床部整形修复科,北京100853

出　　处：《中国美容医学》2012年第5期713-715,共3页Chinese Journal of Aesthetic Medicine

摘　　要：目的:比较聚丙烯网片与膨体聚四氟乙烯补片修补TRAM皮瓣切取后腹壁缺损的有效性及安全性。方法:回顾性分析85例游离TRAM皮瓣切取术后腹壁缺损的修补,比较两组患者术后并发症的发生率。结果:两组患者均无腹壁疝发生;聚丙烯网片组患者腹壁膨出率为6.3%,膨体聚四氟乙烯补片组为5.7%,无显著性差异;膨体聚四氟乙烯补片组术后感染率及积血积液率略高于聚丙烯网片组,无显著性差异;聚丙烯网片组患者术后疼痛不适及异物感发生率为34.4%,高于膨体聚四氟乙烯组的3.8%,差异具有统计学意义。结论:两种补片对于修复TRAM皮瓣切取后腹壁缺损都是有效的,膨体聚四氟乙烯补片更佳。Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of polyproylene mesh （PPM） and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene （e-PTFE） mesh for repairing abdominal wall defect after harvesting the free TRAM flap. Methods 85 cases of abdominal defects repaired with PPM or e-PTFE were retrospectively surveyed. Complications of abdominal wall were compared between two groups. Results None of hernia was occurred in both groups,abdominal wall bulging rates were around 6.3% in PPM group and 5.7% in e-PTFE group,with no significant difference.E-PTFE mesh had more infections and seromas than PPM,but with no significant difference. 34.4% of patients in PPM group felt postoperative discomfort and pain which were much higher than those in e-PTFE group（3.8%）. Conclusions PPM and e-PTFE mesh were effective for repairing abdominal wall defect after harvesting the free TRAM flap while E-PTFE mesh maybe better.

关 键 词：聚丙烯网片 膨体聚四氟乙烯补片 TRAM皮瓣 腹壁缺损 

分 类 号：R622[医药卫生—整形外科]