小切口扩张器置入术在瘢痕修复中的应用探讨

目的 探讨小切口扩张器置入术在瘢痕修复中的应用,以指导今后的工作.方法 将接受皮肤软组织扩张术治疗的瘢痕患者分为2组:小切口组312例,采用微创小切口置入扩张器共653枚;常规切121组205例,采用常规切口置入扩张器共428枚.比较2组手术情况及并发症的发生率.结果 小切口组扩张器置入时间和注水扩张时间分别为(43.0±5.3)min/枚、(11.8±2.0)周]较常规切口组分别为(66.1±8.9)min/枚、(15.7±2.2)周]明显缩短,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01).小切口组切口裂开和扩张器外露的发生率分别为4例(0.6%)、2例(0.3%)]明显低于常规切口组分别为15例(3.5%)、10例(2.3%)],差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);血肿和感染的发生率2组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).小切口组并发症的发生率低于常规切口组分别为21例(3.2%)、41例(9.6%),P<0.01].结论 采用微创小切口扩张器置入术可以明显缩短治疗时间,手术创伤小,术后并发症发生率低,有较好的临床推广价值.

Abstract：

Objective To explore the application of implanting expander through mini-incision in scar repairing. Methods Five hundred and seventeen patients were divided into two groups. There were 312 cases in the mini-incision group and 205 cases in the traditional incision group. The rate of complications was compared between the two groups. Results The time for implanting and injecting the expander in the mini-incision group was shorter than that in the traditional incision group. The difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.01). There were less cases of wound dehiscence and expander exposure in the mini-incision group than that in the traditional incision group. The difference was also statistically significant ( P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in postoperative hematoma and infection rates between these two groups (P >0.05). The rate of total complications was significantly lower in the mini-incision group (21 cases, 3. 2% ) than that in the traditional incision group (41 cases, 9.6% , P < 0. 01). Conclusions The application of implanting expander through mini-incision can significantly decrease the treatment time and trauma, showing a low rate of postoperative complications.

The application of implanting expander through' mini-incision in scar repairing operation

Objective To explore the application of implanting expander through mini-incision in scar repairing. Methods Five hundred and seventeen patients were divided into two groups. There were 312 cases in the mini-incision group and 205 cases in the traditional incision group. The rate of complications was compared between the two groups. Results The time for implanting and injecting the expander in the mini-incision group was shorter than that in the traditional incision group. The difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.01). There were less cases of wound dehiscence and expander exposure in the mini-incision group than that in the traditional incision group. The difference was also statistically significant ( P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in postoperative hematoma and infection rates between these two groups (P >0.05). The rate of total complications was significantly lower in the mini-incision group (21 cases, 3. 2% ) than that in the traditional incision group (41 cases, 9.6% , P < 0. 01). Conclusions The application of implanting expander through mini-incision can significantly decrease the treatment time and trauma, showing a low rate of postoperative complications.