超声高频外科集成系统与传统电刀在皮瓣移植中的应用效果对比OA
Comparison of Application Effects between Ultrasonic Surgical & Electrosurgical Generator and Traditional Electrosurgical Generator in Flap Transplantation
目的:通过比较超声高频外科集成系统与传统电刀在皮瓣制备中的差异,为超声高频外科集成系统在皮瓣制备中的应用提供依据.方法:选取2021年1月-2024年9月于笔者科室就诊的需进行皮瓣移植手术的98例患者作为研究对象,按随机数字表法分为研究组和对照组,各49例.对照组在皮瓣制备过程中使用传统电刀刀头,研究组则使用超声高频外科集成系统刀头,比较两组皮瓣制备时间、术中出血量、供瓣区引流量、供瓣区引流管留置天数、术后3d疼痛程度、皮瓣血运状态(血管危象发生率)、皮瓣成活率以及其他并发症发生率.结果:对照组皮瓣制备时间为(48.98±5.08)min,研究组皮瓣制备时间为(44.00±3.25)min;对照组术中出血量为(114.78±7.07)ml,研究组术中出血量为(105.43±7.35)ml;对照组供瓣区引流量为(181.67±15.73)ml,研究组供瓣区引流量为(159.67±14.49)ml;对照组供瓣区引流管留置天数为(4.08±0.81)d,研究组供瓣区引流管留置天数为(3.12±0.78)d;对照组术后3 d疼痛评分为(4.08±0.69)分,研究组术后3d疼痛评分为(3.29±0.59)分;对照组血管危象发生率为16.33％,研究组血管危象发生率为4.08％;对照组皮瓣成活率为79.59％,研究组皮瓣成活率为93.88％.上述指标研究组均优于对照组,且差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).两组均未发生皮瓣下血肿、皮瓣撕脱、皮瓣感染病例等其他并发症.结论:超声高频外科集成系统在皮瓣制备及移植后效果上均优于传统电刀方式,具备临床推广应用价值.
Objective To compare the difference of ultrasonic surgical & electrosurgical generator and traditional electrosurgical generator in flap preparation,and to provide basis for the application of ultrasonic surgical & electrosurgical generator in flap preparation.Methods Ninety-eight patients who underwent flap transplantation surgery in the Department from January 2021 to September 2024 were selected as the study subjects.They were randomly divided into a research group and a control group,with 49 patients in each group,according to the random number table method.The control group used the traditional electrosurgical generator in the flap preparation process,while the study group used the ultrasonic surgical & electrosurgical generator.The flap preparation time,intraoperative blood loss,donor site drainage volume,donor site drainage tube indwelling days,postoperative 3 d pain level,flap blood supply status(incidence rate of vascular crisis),flap survival rate and other complications were compared between the two groups.Results The flap preparation time was(48.98±5.08)min in control group and(44.00±3.25)min in study group.The intraoperative blood loss was(114.78±7.07)ml in control group and(105.43±7.35)ml in study group.The donor site drainage volume was(181.67±15.73)ml in control group and(159.67±14.49)ml in study group.The donor site drainage tube indwelling time was(4.08±0.81)d in control group and(3.12±0.78)d in study group.The pain score of the control group was(4.08±0.69)points in control group and(3.29±0.59)points in study group.The incidence rate of vascular crisis was 16.33％in control group and 4.08％in study group.The incidence rate of vascular crisis in study group was lower than that in control group.The flap survival rate was 79.59％in control group and 93.88％in study group.The above indicators were superior to those in control group(all P＜0.05).No other complications such as sub-flap hematoma,flap avulsion,or flap infection occurred in either group.Conclusion Ultrasonic surgical & electrosurgical generator is superior to traditional electrosurgical generator in flap preparation and transplantation,and has the value of clinical application.
冯佳雄;黄晓涛;许研然;孙泽光;陈杰
汕头市人民医院烧伤整形科 广东汕头 515000汕头市人民医院烧伤整形科 广东汕头 515000汕头市人民医院烧伤整形科 广东汕头 515000汕头市人民医院烧伤整形科 广东汕头 515000汕头市人民医院烧伤整形科 广东汕头 515000
医药卫生
超声高频外科集成系统传统电刀皮瓣制备软组织缺损皮瓣移植
ultrasonic surgical & electrosurgical generatortraditional electrosurgical generatorflap preparationskin and soft tissue defectsflap transplantation
《中国美容医学》 2026 (2)
26-30,5
汕头市科技计划医疗卫生项目(编号:221106186495824)
评论