两种外耳再造术的临床对比及经验总结  

Clinical comparison and experience summary of two auricular reconstruction methods

作　　者：吕巍[1] 毋巨龙[1] LYU Wei WU Ju-long.(Department of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Southwest Hospital of Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400038, Chin)

机构地区：[1]第三军医大学西南医院整形美容外科,重庆400038

出　　处：《中国美容整形外科杂志》2017年第4期209-211,共3页Chinese Journal of Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery

摘　　要：目的总结探讨皮肤软组织扩张法与改良Brent法外耳再造术并发症的发生情况。方法根据外耳再造手术方式分为两组,皮肤软组织扩张法组(162例)和改良Brent法组(127例),并对两组结果进行统计分析。结果皮肤软组织扩张法外耳再造术的并发症发生率显著高于改良Brent法(P<0.05),其中皮肤软组织扩张法的支架外露率显著高于改良Bren!法(P<0.05)。结论(1)皮肤软组织扩张法比改良Brent法更容易出现术后并发症;(2)对于不能接受植皮术后瘢痕的患者,皮肤软组织扩张法更加适用。Objective To compare and summarize the occurrence of postoperative complications between the skin soft tissueexpansion method and the modified Brent method in auricular reconstruction.Methods Patients were divided into 2 groups according to surgical method,with 162 cases in the skin soft tissue-expansion method group and 127 cases in the modified Brent method group.The clinical data between the two groups were statistically analyzed.Results The incidence rate of postoperative complications in patients who underwent the skin soft tissue-expansion method was significantly higher than that in the modified Brent method （P〈0.05）.Among these complications,the framework exposure rate of the soft tissue-expansion method was much higher than that of the modified Brent method （P〈0.05）.Conclusion （1） Compared with the modified Brent method,the occurrence rate of postoperative complications was higherin the soft tissue-expansion method;（2） The skin soft tissue-expansion method was more suitable for patients who could not accept scars after skin-grafting.

关 键 词：耳再造 并发症 小耳畸形 

分 类 号：R622[医药卫生—整形外科] R764.9[医药卫生—外科学]