...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Hand Surgery. American Volume >De-epithelialized cross-finger flaps versus adipofascial turnover flaps for the reconstruction of small complex dorsal digital defects: a comparative analysis.
【24h】

De-epithelialized cross-finger flaps versus adipofascial turnover flaps for the reconstruction of small complex dorsal digital defects: a comparative analysis.

机译:去上皮交叉指状皮瓣与脂肪筋膜周转皮瓣重建小复杂的背侧指状缺损:对比分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

PURPOSE: To compare the results of 2 reconstructive options (the de-epithelialized cross-finger flap vs the adipofascial turnover flap) for coverage of small complex dorsal digital defects. METHODS: A total of 73 patients with small complex dorsal digital defects were included in the study and were classified into 2 groups: group 1 (n = 31) had reconstruction using the de-epithelialized cross-finger flap and group 2 (n = 42) had reconstruction using the adipofascial turnover flap. The type of complication and patient dissatisfaction with the appearance of the donor site were documented in each study group. RESULTS: All flaps in both groups survived with no infection or hematoma. Specific complications were found in group 1 patients and included flap dehiscence (1 patient), considerable skin graft loss (2 patients), stiffness of the donor finger (5 patients), and inclusion cyst (1 patient). The only specific complication for group 2 patients was the occasional epidermolysis of the skin of the donor site, which was observed in 6 patients. Patient dissatisfaction with the appearance of the donor site was documented in 10 patients in group 1 and none in group 2. The elective flap division in the cross-finger-flap group was considered a disadvantage in children because it required general anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The versatility of both flap techniques in digital reconstruction is confirmed; however, considering the type of complication and the need for general anesthesia in children for cross-finger-flap division, the adipofascial flap was determined to be superior in the following specific groups: children, older patients, and patients with osteoarthritis and multiple defects of adjacent border digits.
机译:目的:比较两种重建方法(去上皮的交叉指状皮瓣与脂肪筋膜周转皮瓣)的结果,以覆盖小而复杂的指背数字缺损。方法:本研究共纳入73例具有复杂的小指背数字缺损的患者,分为2组:第1组(n = 31)使用去上皮的交叉指瓣重建,第2组(n = 42) )使用脂肪筋膜周转皮瓣进行重建。在每个研究组中记录并发症的类型和患者对供体部位外观的不满。结果:两组皮瓣均存活,无感染或血肿。在第1组患者中发现了特定的并发症,包括皮瓣裂开(1例),大量的皮肤移植物丢失(2例),供体手指僵硬(5例)和包囊囊肿(1例)。第2组患者唯一的特异性并发症是供体部位皮肤偶尔发生表皮松解,在6例患者中观察到。在第1组中有10名患者记录了患者对供体部位外观的不满意,而在第2组中没有患者记录。由于需要全身麻醉,因此交叉指瓣组中的选择性皮瓣划分被认为对儿童不利。结论:两种皮瓣技术在数字重建中的多功能性得到了证实;但是,考虑到并发症的类型以及儿童进行交叉指瓣分割的全身麻醉的必要性,确定在以下特定人群中,脂肪面部皮瓣优于儿童:儿童,年龄较大的患者以及骨关节炎和多发性缺陷的患者相邻的边界数字。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号