超薄扩张皮瓣自体肋软骨支架耳廓再造术

目的:探讨超薄扩张皮瓣自体肋软骨支架耳廓再造术的临床效果。方法:采用乳突区皮肤扩张,自体肋软骨支架耳廓再造。结果:1例皮肤扩张器外露,其余11例患者手术成功。再造耳廓大小、外形与健侧相似,医患双方满意。结论:耳后乳突区皮肤扩张后皮瓣薄,自体肋软骨作为耳支架耳廓再造,术后耳廓外形逼真、立体感强,是目前最可靠和最可取的方法。     

皮肤扩张及自体肋软骨支架法全耳廓成形术矫正先天性小耳畸形

目的探讨耳后乳突区皮肤扩张及自体肋软骨支架法全耳廓成形术矫正先天性小耳畸形的临床效果。方法21例先天性小耳畸形患者,分3期进行手术治疗。Ⅰ期：患侧耳后乳突区皮下埋置50ml肾形扩张器,术后定期注水,扩张皮肤3～4个月,平均注水（80．51±3．87）ml,达预定量后稳定养护1个月。Ⅱ期：取自体肋软骨,雕刻成由4层软骨构成的耳支架,整体为倒立的海螺样外观,将扩张皮瓣覆盖于整个自体肋软骨支架表面,再造耳廓。Ⅲ期：Ⅱ期术后3个月对成形耳进行细节性修整。结果21例患者手术均获成功,成形耳廓大小、外形均与健侧相似,医患双方满意。结论耳后乳突区皮肤扩张法所扩张的皮肤,可覆盖于整个自体肋软骨支架表面,术后耳廓外形逼真,立体感强。     

皮肤扩张法修复外伤性耳廓缺损

目的:探讨皮肤扩张结合自体肋软骨支架修复外伤性耳廓缺损的可行性和效果。方法:根据耳廓缺损面积的大小选择50~80ml扩张器置入缺损后乳突区筋膜下,注水扩张至70~100ml。Ⅱ期手术时取出扩张器切取对侧第7、8或7、8、9肋软骨制作耳支架,用皮瓣包裹修复缺损,3个月后进行支架与残耳衔接修整。结果:除1例患者支架表面皮肤0.5cm×0.5cm坏死换药后愈合外,其余病例创口Ⅰ期愈合无并发症,耳廓外形满意。结论:皮肤扩张结合自体肋软骨支架修复外伤性耳廓缺损能取得较好的手术效果。     

三种耳廓支架材料再造耳

耳廓再造术要用耳廓支架对再造耳进行支撑。１９８４年～１９９６年，对收治的３３例耳廓缺如畸形患者，采用自体肋软骨雕刻支架、同种异体耳软骨支架及硅胶管钢丝支架等三种不同的支架，切取经埋置皮肤软组织扩张器进行预扩张后的耳后皮瓣，包裹支架材料，行全耳再造或修复，２２例经平均３年６个月随访，患者满意或基本满意者１６例，不满意３例，手术失败３例。认为，全耳廓再造以自体肋软骨材料为支架效果较好，以同种异体肋软骨或硅胶管钢丝作支架应慎重选择。     

多孔高密度聚乙烯应用于扩张法耳廓再造术的临床研究

目的探讨应用多孔高密度聚乙烯（Medpor）作为再造耳支架对先天性小耳或后天耳廓缺失患者进行再造的可行性。方法1999年2月-2004年2月收治61例耳廓缺失患者，男38例，女23例；年龄5～61岁。先天性小耳40例，其中双侧1例，单侧39例．外伤后耳廓缺损21例，其中双侧6例，单侧15例。应用耳后软组织扩张法，以Medpor为支架行耳廓再造术。手术分二期，一期为耳后皮肤软组织扩张器置入术；二期为耳廓再造术。以耳后扩张皮瓣或扩张的耳后瘢痕瓣和乳突区皮下组织筋膜瓣包裹Medpor支架，再造耳廓。结果61例耳廓再造术患者均痊愈出院，获随访6个月～5年1个月，平均2．8年。其中49例（80．3％）患者对手术结果满意，7例（11．5％）认为再造耳手术效果尚可，3例（4．9％）发生了支架外露，对手术效果不满意，2例（3．3％）于术后6个月行自体肋软骨移植，置换Medpor支架。结论扩张法耳廓再造术中，对不适合、不能或不愿取用自体肋软骨作为再造耳支架的患者，应用Medpor耳支架，是一种较为安全、简便及可行的方法。     

皮肤软组织扩张与自体肋软骨移植外耳再造术的护理对策

目的:总结皮肤软组织扩张与自体肋软骨移植法外耳再造相关护理的经验及效果。方法:2008年1月至2012年1月共收治耳廓缺损患者20例,其中先天性小耳畸形18例,外伤性耳廓缺损2例;手术方法:Ⅰ期耳后乳突区置入皮肤软组织扩张器,Ⅱ期利用扩张的耳后皮瓣及筋膜瓣覆盖自体肋软骨耳支架加皮片移植,形成再造耳,Ⅲ期行耳屏、耳甲腔等整形术。相应的护理对策措施主要有:围手术期的护理、心理护理、引流管的护理。结果:随访6个月~4年,均完成三期耳再造术,再造耳位置正常,形态良好,三维结构清晰,医患双方满意;未发生扩张器外露、感染、扩张器埋置术后血肿、软骨支架外露等并发症。结论:加强围手术期的护理和健康指导,可以减少并发症,是获得皮肤软组织扩张与自体肋软骨移植法外耳再造法手术成功的关键。     

不同方法治疗外伤性耳廓缺损

目的探讨根据耳廓缺损部位和耳后乳突区皮肤损伤程度的不同,选择不同的手术方式治疗外伤性耳廓缺损的可行性并评价手术效果。方法本组108例外伤性耳廓缺损患者,采用两种耳廓再造的方法,72例运用耳后皮肤软组织扩张术行耳廓再造,36例运用Brent技术行耳廓再造,耳支架均采用自体肋软骨雕刻。结果 108例再造外耳均愈合良好,外形满意,双侧耳对称。有4例出现耳软骨支架外露,经治疗后愈合。结论根据患者自身情况,制定个性化治疗方案,可以在提高手术安全性前提下,达到最佳的效果。     

耳后扩张皮瓣联合肋软骨移植修复外伤性耳缺损

目的 探讨扩张皮瓣法联合自体肋软骨支架修复外伤性耳缺损的临床效果.方法 2008年8月至2010年8月,采用扩张皮瓣法联合自体肋软骨支架移植治疗外伤性外耳缺损患者10例,手术分2期,一期在局麻下行耳后50 ml扩张器植入术,术后1周开始注水,平均注水60 ml.二期行耳后扩张器取出、自体肋软骨支架移植、扩张皮瓣转移、中厚植皮、耳廓成形术.结果 10例患者术后伤口均愈合良好,无并发症发生;均获6个月至2年随访,术后患者再造耳廓形态良好,外耳解剖结构清晰,位置、大小、形态与健侧基本一致.结论扩张皮瓣法联合肋软骨支架移植是修复外伤性耳缺损的一种可靠有效的方法.     

应用耳后乳突区双皮下蒂皮瓣早期修复外伤性大面积耳廓缺损

目的 为早期修复大面积耳廓缺损寻找有效适用的手术方法.方法 在耳后乳突区设计双皮下蒂皮瓣,向前推进转移,包埋自体肋软骨支架,修复外耳廓缺损.结果 临床应用12例,取得了满意的效果.结论 应用耳后乳突区双皮下蒂皮瓣早期修复较大面积耳廓缺损,手术设计简单,取材方便,是较为可取的手术方法.     

皮肤扩张法结合自体肋软骨支架治疗重度杯状耳畸形

目的:探讨采用皮肤扩张法结合自体肋软骨支架治疗重度杯状耳畸形的效果。方法:采用皮肤扩张法结合自体肋软骨支架三期法治疗重度杯状耳畸形患者共16例(16只耳)。第一期手术耳后置入50~80ml扩张器,注水扩张3个月,第二期手术切取自体肋软骨,雕刻组合成三维立体软骨支架,用扩张皮瓣包裹支架形成耳廓。3个月后,杯状耳转位与再造部分衔接,完成重度杯状耳畸形的修复。结果:1例患者第三期术后出现软骨支架外露,经换药后愈合。其余15例无并发症发生。再造的耳廓外形良好,结构清晰,双侧耳廓对称。结论:采用扩张法结合自体肋软骨支架治疗重度杯状耳畸形,能够提供足够的皮肤及软骨量,是矫正杯状耳畸形的一种较好的手术方法。     

三种全耳再造手术方式支架外露情况的比较研究

目的:通过比较三种不同全耳再造手术方式术后支架外露的发生情况,为耳再造手术方式的选择提供依据。方法:对369例全耳再造术分别采用耳后乳突区皮肤扩张后肋软骨支架耳再造(软骨组)、颞浅筋膜瓣翻转Medpor材料耳再造(Medpor组)及颞浅筋膜瓣翻转肋软骨耳轮联合Medpor耳基耳再造手术(复合组),比较不同全耳再造术后支架外露的发生率、发生部位、出现时间及与患者年龄、手术时期等方面的差异。结果:软骨组、Medpor组及复合组支架外露发生率分别为7.1%、12.9%及6.7%,三者比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。三组中,耳轮外上缘均为外露比例最高部位,出现时间均多在术后3月内发生。软骨组支架外露发生率在18岁以上者最高,Medpor组支架外露发生率则在18岁以上者最低(P<0.05)。近5年来手术者支架外露比例较前5年降低。结论:不论选择何种手术方式,均不能完全杜绝支架外露的发生,采用何种方法要依患者的情况及术者对手术方式的掌握情况来综合考虑。但对于6～12岁少儿,采用肋软骨法再造为宜;而对于大于18岁的成人,则采用Medpor法再造为宜。     

获得性耳廓缺损的修复

目的探讨获得性耳廓缺损的手术修复方法。方法采用组织扩张器结合自体肋软骨支架移植或Medpor支架置入、耳赝复体等多种方法进行修复。结果长期随访观察,再造耳廓皮瓣色泽红润、柔软、感觉功能无明显异常;移植耳廓软骨支架无软化、吸收、变形;Medpor支架偶有外露;再造耳廓位置、形态、大小和对侧基本一致;耳赝复体外形佳,固定牢靠。结论组织扩张器结合自体肋软骨支架移植的方法,疗效满意、并发症少,是获得性耳廓缺损的主要治疗方法;组织扩张器结合Medpor支架置入和耳赝复体制作治疗是其有益的补充。     

颞顶筋膜瓣与扩张皮瓣联合覆盖Medpor支架外耳再造术

目的探讨颞顶筋膜瓣与扩张皮瓣联合覆盖Medpor支架再造外耳的效果。方法手术分两期进行:一期手术在乳突区置入皮肤软组织扩张器,并定时注水扩张;第二期手术将扩张器取出并形成蒂在前的扩张皮瓣、掀起以颞浅血管为蒂的颞顶筋膜瓣,应用颞顶筋膜瓣和乳突区扩张皮瓣双重由里至外覆盖Medpor耳支架完成耳廓再造。结果临床应用22例,随访半年至2年半,无耳支架外露发生,再造的耳廓外形逼真,轮廓分明,肤色与周围正常皮肤一致。结论应用乳突区扩张皮瓣及颞顶筋膜瓣双层组织瓣包被Medpor耳支架,可以提高Medpor耳支架置入的安全性,避免发生外露,又不影响支架外形和轮廓的显现,再造耳表面皮肤的色泽与周围皮肤一致。     

Combined Fascial Flap and Expanded Skin Flap for Enveloping Medpor Framework in Microtia Reconstruction

The Medpor implant is another choice for a new auricular framework besides autogenous costal cartilage. However, its relatively frequent exposure and less-matching skin coverage discourage surgeons from using it. In this article, we present a new two-flap method, a combination of the temporoparietal fascial flap and the expanded skin flap, for wrapping the Medpor implant in microtia reconstruction. A staged surgical procedure was performed, including soft tissue expansion in the mastoid region, soft tissue expander removal, expanded skin flap and temporoparietal fascial flap formation, Medpor framework implantation, and the combined two-flap envelopment. Conventional lobule transposition and tragus reconstruction were accomplished for selected patients. In this study, a total of 22 microtias were reconstructed consecutively using this method. Eighteen patients were followed since the first surgery. The postoperative follow-up time ranged from 3 to 12 months. The draped soft tissue covering was thin enough to show the reconstructed ear with excellent, subtle contour when edema gradually vanished 3-6 months postoperatively. The new ear had a stable shape, and its skin color and texture matched the normal surrounding skin very well. No exposure or extrusion of the framework was observed in the series. The Medpor implant enveloped by both a temporoparietal fascial flap and an expanded cutaneous flap appears to be a promising alternative for the auricular framework in microtia reconstruction. Because of the wrapping tissues, auricular construction using a Medpor implant can be a safe, steady, and easily acceptable choice for both microtia patients and their physicians.     

A new skin flap method for total auricular reconstruction: extended scalp skin flap in continuity with postauricular skin flap and isolated conchal flap: four skin flaps and temporoparietal fascia flap

A sufficient skin envelope of good quality as well as definite auricular framework is a prerequisite for a successful auricular reconstruction. Various surgical techniques, such as recruitment of mastoid skin, skin graft, tissue expansion, and so on, have been used to get the necessary skin for covering of the auricular framework. However, debates about the drawbacks of these techniques have continued. In this article, I report on a new skin flap method for total auricular reconstruction, which is an extended scalp skin flap in continuity with postauricular skin flap and isolated conchal flap. Between January 2009 and March 2010, a total of 20 patients underwent an auricular reconstruction using a Medpor framework (Porex Surgical, Inc, Newnan, GA) and the new skin flap method. Follow-up time range was 4 to 17 months. The reconstructed ear showed no definite true hair growth except for some fine hair, which can be ignored. More favorable results such as a good color matched skin, well-formed ear convolution, no other donor site scars can now be achieved using this new method.     

Total auricular reconstruction without skin grafting

Successful ear reconstruction depends on two factors: an ear framework and the skin covering the framework. However, the relative deficiency of skin for coverage of the cartilage framework remains an issue. This new method for total auricular reconstruction is a three-stage operation and involves the use of two tissue expanders. First, two skin expanders are implanted, one underneath the scalp and the other sited behind the microtic ear. At the second stage, after lobule transposition, the two expanded skin flaps (upper and lower) and mastoid fascial flap are raised. At the same time, the autogenous rib cartilage is harvested and the framework constructed. The cartilage framework is then anchored between the upper expanded skin flap and the fascial flap with its inferior pole inserted into the rotated earlobe. The upper expanded skin flap covers the whole anterior surface of the framework and drapes over the margins of the fascial flap, which wrap the framework from beneath. The raw surface of fascial flap is covered with the lower expanded skin flap. The formation of a pseudomeatus and tragus is performed at the third stage. Deficiency of skin is the major problem encountered with the other conventional methods. Our innovations using two tissue expanders in combination with an autogenous rib cartilage framework eliminate this problem completely.     

乳突区双扩张器重叠埋置在全耳廓再造术中的应用

目的 介绍应用两个皮肤软组织扩张器叠加埋置的方法进行全耳廓再造的临床经验。方法 自2008年1月至2011年12月,共27例小耳畸形患者实施该方法。一期手术在患侧乳突区埋置肾形皮肤软组织扩张器80 mL（或100 mL） 和50 mL 各一个,将体积大的扩张器叠加放置在体积小的扩张器之上,术后定期交替扩张器注水3～6月。二期手术全部采用Medpor人工耳廓支架,取出扩张器,将扩张的皮瓣直接包裹支架,负压维持耳廓成形。结果 随访时间4～50月,27例再造的耳廓外形位置良好,皮肤质地与周围皮肤相近,颅耳沟稳定无回缩,扩张皮瓣无坏死。2例患者因伤口裂开发生耳廓支架外露(7.4%),进行一次修补手术后恢复良好。结论 乳突区叠加埋置两个扩张器全耳廓再造术,避免了植皮,不再使用耳后筋膜瓣和颞筋膜瓣,手术过程简单化,缩短了手术时间,部分再造耳廓亚单位欠清晰,但总体效果满意。     

双扩张器重叠扩张无需植皮的全耳成形术

目的 探讨一期采用双扩张器重叠扩张,二期无需植皮进行全耳成形术的方法,并总结其优缺点及适应证.方法 对6例先天性小耳畸形患者,采用一期在耳后区上、下重叠各埋置1个扩张器,常规注水扩张.二期取出扩张器,以自体肋软骨或Medpor材料作为支架,筋膜瓣包裹支架,设计上部扩张皮瓣,覆盖支架前侧及后侧上部;下部扩张皮瓣覆盖支架后侧下部;残余扩张皮瓣,向下推进转移后覆盖耳后颅侧壁创面.同时采用传统扩张法行全耳成形术13例作为对照.结果 所有患者术中均无需另取皮片移植,术后所造外耳轮廓清晰,形状逼真,无感染及支架外露等并发症发生,仅1例耳后皮瓣远端约0.5 cm×0.5 cm表皮坏死,经换药后愈合.术后随访3～6个月,采用双扩张器重叠扩张组患者,利用胸部切取肋软骨切口作为皮片的供区切口瘢痕明显较单扩张器传统扩张法为小(P<0.05);并发症的发生率明显低于单扩张器传统扩张法组(P<0.01),患者的满意率也高于单扩张器传统扩张法组(P<0.05),但在成形的外耳耳轮上后部可见少许毛发生长.结论 双扩张器重叠扩张法可以扩张出足够的皮肤组织,在二期耳成形术时,通过精心合理设计扩张皮瓣覆盖耳后创面,无需植皮,切取软骨部的供区瘢痕明显减小,支架外露及感染等并发症的发生率也明显降低.     

耳后联合双层筋膜瓣Medpor支架全耳再造的临床研究

目的:探讨采用颞顶筋膜瓣与耳后筋膜皮瓣(简称:耳后联合双层筋膜瓣),Medpor支架行先天性小耳畸形全耳再造术的方法和效果。方法:采用颞顶支为血管蒂的岛状筋膜瓣移转至残耳乳突区耳后,与耳后乳突区筋膜皮瓣同期同步进行扩张,然后将扩张的耳后联合双层筋膜皮瓣包裹Medpor支架行全耳廓再造。结果:本组患者中经3个月~3年的随访,再造耳皮肤颜色与耳周缘面部相接近,微细结构清晰,颅耳角与健耳对称,形态结构好。结论:耳后联合双层筋膜瓣+Medpor支架行全耳廓再造,既能有效避免支架外露和传统手术供区胸壁畸形,又能避免切取自体肋软骨增加的创伤及痛苦。再造耳皮肤颜色与正常肤色相似,形态满意,是一种值得推广的手术方法。     

Borderline indications for ear reconstruction

While the indication for an ear reconstruction with rib cartilage is clear in pediatric patients and patients without previous surgery, there are borderline cases in which neither a reconstruction nor a prosthesis seems to be first choice.Within the last 6 years, approximately 120 patients were treated with a reconstruction with rib cartilage and 20 with a prosthesis at our hospital.Patients without extensively scarred periauricular tissue clearly benefit by a reconstruction with cartilage. The classic indication for an ear prosthesis is status post-malignant tumor resection. In borderline cases presenting with heavy scars, the most favorable repair method has to be decided upon individually. Under these circumstances, one of the main criteria for a reconstruction with rib cartilage is a viable temporoparietal fascia flap. A consideration that is important to note is that an unfavorable ear reconstruction can be converted almost always into a prosthesis repair but very rarely vice versa.