本文選題：耳再造 + 負(fù)壓引流�。� 參考：《重慶醫(yī)學(xué)》2014年27期

【摘要】：目的探討兩種負(fù)壓引流法用于外耳再造術(shù)后引流的效果。方法選擇2009~2012年在該院整形美容外科行外耳再造手術(shù)的患者196例(201只耳),隨機(jī)分為兩組,注射器負(fù)壓組58例共計(jì)60只再造耳,采用注射器負(fù)壓引流法;中心負(fù)壓組138例共計(jì)141只再造耳,采用中心負(fù)壓引流法。比較兩組患者術(shù)后并發(fā)癥發(fā)生情況。結(jié)果中心負(fù)壓組術(shù)后并發(fā)癥除積血外,腫脹發(fā)生情況均低于注射器負(fù)壓組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05);中心負(fù)壓組耳甲腔皮瓣壞死、皮瓣邊緣壞死、耳支架外露發(fā)生情況明顯低于注射器負(fù)壓組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.01)。結(jié)論外耳再造術(shù)后使用中心負(fù)壓引流法比注射器負(fù)壓引流法效果更好,并發(fā)癥更少。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate the effect of two negative pressure drainage methods on external ear reconstruction. Methods A total of 196 patients (201 ears) with external ear reconstruction were randomly divided into two groups: 58 patients with negative pressure syringe (n = 58) and 60 ears reconstructed by negative pressure syringe drainage. In the central negative pressure group, 141 ears were reconstructed with central negative pressure drainage. To compare the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. Results the postoperative complications in the central negative pressure group were lower than those in the syringe negative pressure group (P 0.05), the incidence of swelling was lower than that in the syringe negative pressure group (P 0.05), the ear nail flap necrosis and the flap edge necrosis in the central negative pressure group. The incidence of ear stent exposure was significantly lower than that of syringe negative pressure group (P 0.01). Conclusion the central negative pressure drainage method is more effective than the syringe negative pressure drainage method after external ear reconstruction.
【作者單位】： 第三軍醫(yī)大學(xué)西南整形美容外科醫(yī)院;
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：R764.1
，

本文編號(hào)：1813254