-
手是形成、执行、发展精细动作的主要器官,其神经感受器与小肌群运动共同完成了人认识客观世界、与外界世界产生接触的活动,而手背软组织的缺损会严重影响小肌肉协调、手眼协调、手指灵活性等功能的发挥,甚至导致低龄病人感觉系统功能失常,姿势与移动能力发育障碍[1-2]。手的解剖结构复杂,为尽可能地恢复或提高术后手的感知、运动功能,临床以往多采取小腿外侧、足背、股前外侧皮瓣对手背软组织缺损进行移植修复[3]。但随着现代美学要求的提高,传统修复方式已不能满足临床需求,而胸背动脉穿支皮瓣相对较薄、可供面积大、神经及血管覆盖丰富,常用于颌面部、口腔等各种类型的损伤修复[4]。还有研究[5]显示,利用胸背动脉穿支皮瓣对手背软组织缺损进行修复,并不会对背阔肌的功能形态造成明显影响。但临床对手背软组织缺损使用胸背动脉穿支皮瓣修复后的效果还有争议。因此,本文对手背软组织缺损使用胸背动脉穿支皮瓣修复的效果进行研究,为临床提高病人术后的手功能、缩短术后恢复时间、提高皮瓣存活率及控制术后并发症提供依据。
-
88例病人治疗后6个月的对指、对掌、手指内收及外展等评分及手功能评定总分均高于治疗前(P <0.05~P < 0.01)(见表 1)。
项目 治疗前 治疗后6个月 t P 对指 6.75±0.82 7.36±1.01 2.70 < 0.01 对掌 5.69±0.78 7.14±0.95 2.95 < 0.01 手指内收及外展 5.47±0.73 6.61±0.88 2.09 < 0.05 手指屈伸 13.26±1.60 16.72±2.49 4.20 < 0.01 腕关节旋转 2.15±0.55 3.41±0.74 2.22 < 0.05 腕关节屈伸 2.38±0.62 3.49±0.78 2.45 < 0.01 日常活动 13.03±1.71 16.25±2.56 3.81 < 0.01 感觉功能 5.69±0.75 6.94±0.87 2.33 < 0.05 外观 5.14±0.69 6.58±0.80 2.09 < 0.05 总分 59.56±8.25 74.50±11.08 8.15 < 0.01 表 1 88例病人治疗前后的手功能评定比较(x±s;分)
-
88例病人的手术时间(95.32±10.59)min, 术中出血量(305.21±26.87)mL, 住院时间(10.53±1.65)d, 供区创面愈合时间(7.26±0.95)d, 受区创面愈合时间(8.47±1.16)d。
-
88例病人中85例皮瓣存活,存活率96.59%;其余3例,2例皮瓣发紫,经积血引流、血管扩张药治疗后改善,1例皮瓣部分坏死,二次清创及再次移植皮瓣后存活。
-
术后发生3例血运障碍,1例血肿,1例感染,2例瘢痕增生严重,并发症发生率7.95%。
胸背动脉穿支皮瓣对手背软组织缺损的修复效果
Effect of dorsal thoracic artery perforator flap in the repair of dorsal hand soft tissue defect
-
摘要:
目的研究胸背动脉穿支皮瓣对手背软组织缺损的修复效果。 方法选择88例手背软组织缺损病人作为研究对象,比较病人治疗前和治疗后6个月的手功能评定量表,并分析病人的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间、供区创面愈合时间、受区创面愈合时间、皮瓣存活率及术后并发症。 结果88例病人治疗后6个月的对指、对掌、手指内收及外展等评分及手功能评定总分高于治疗前(P < 0.05~P < 0.01)。88例病人的手术时间(95.32±10.59)min,术中出血量(305.21±26.87)mL,住院时间(10.53±1.65)d,供区创面愈合时间(7.26±0.95)d,受区创面愈合时间(8.47±1.16)d。88例病人中85例皮瓣存活,存活率96.59%;其余3例中,2例皮瓣发紫,经积血引流、血管扩张药治疗后改善,1例皮瓣部分坏死,二次清创及再次移植皮瓣后存活。术后发生3例血运障碍,1例血肿,1例感染,2例瘢痕增生严重,并发症发生率7.95%。 结论手背软组织缺损采取胸背动脉穿支皮瓣修复,能显著提高病人的手功能,且皮瓣存活率高,适合在临床中深入研究使用。 Abstract:ObjectiveTo study the repair effects of dorsal thoracic artery perforator flap in dorsal hand soft tissue defect. MethodsEighty-eight patients with soft tissue defects were investigated.The hand function assessment scales of patients between before and after 6 months of treatment were compared.The patient's operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, donor site wound healing time, recipient site wound healing time, flap survival rate and postoperative complications were analyzed. ResultsThe scores of opposable fingers, opposable palms, finger adduction and abduction, and total score of hand function of 88 patients after 6 months of treatment were significantly higher than those before treatment(P < 0.05 to P < 0.01).The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, donor site wound healing time and recipient site wound healing time in 88 patients were (95.32±10.59)min, (305.21±26.87)mL, (10.53±1.65)d, (7.26±0.95)d and (8.47±1.16)d, respectively.Among 88 patients, 85 skin flaps survived, and the survival rate of which was 96.59%.Two skin flaps turned purple, and improved after hemoperitoneum drainage and vasodilator treatment.One case of skin flap was partial necrosis, and survived after secondary debridement and retransplantation of the flap.There were 3 cases of blood circulation disorder, one case of hematoma, one case of infection and 2 cases of severe scar hyperplasia after operation.The incidence rate of complication was 7.95%. ConclusionsThe repair of dorsal hand soft tissue defect with dorsal thoracic artery perforator flap can significantly improve the hand function of the patient, the survival rate of flap is high, which is suitable for further study and use in clinic. -
表 1 88例病人治疗前后的手功能评定比较(x±s;分)
项目 治疗前 治疗后6个月 t P 对指 6.75±0.82 7.36±1.01 2.70 < 0.01 对掌 5.69±0.78 7.14±0.95 2.95 < 0.01 手指内收及外展 5.47±0.73 6.61±0.88 2.09 < 0.05 手指屈伸 13.26±1.60 16.72±2.49 4.20 < 0.01 腕关节旋转 2.15±0.55 3.41±0.74 2.22 < 0.05 腕关节屈伸 2.38±0.62 3.49±0.78 2.45 < 0.01 日常活动 13.03±1.71 16.25±2.56 3.81 < 0.01 感觉功能 5.69±0.75 6.94±0.87 2.33 < 0.05 外观 5.14±0.69 6.58±0.80 2.09 < 0.05 总分 59.56±8.25 74.50±11.08 8.15 < 0.01 -
[1] 李乔红, 吕云峰, 张超.股前外侧穿支皮瓣修复手外伤软组织缺损效果及对病人血清炎性因子水平的影响[J].山东医药, 2018, 58(14):66. [2] 孙涛, 王晓峰, 周坚龙, 等.胸背动脉穿支皮瓣修复手部皮肤软组织缺损35例[J].中华显微外科杂志, 2016, 39(3):221. [3] GONG X, CUI J, JIANG Z, et al.Risk factors for pedicled flap necrosis in hand soft tissue reconstruction:a multivariate logistic regression analysis[J].ANZ J Surg, 2018, 88(3):127. doi: 10.1111/ans.14235 [4] 李志超, 王靳, 张志强.大鱼际桡侧逆行岛状瓣与腹部皮瓣对拇指软组织缺损的修复效果比较研究[J].重庆医学, 2017, 46(11):1537. [5] 张奇, 张莉, 李旭文, 等.负压封闭引流技术联合植皮治疗严重皮肤软组织缺损伴特殊感染创面[J].蚌埠医学院学报, 2014, 39(2):168. [6] 胡其恭, 欧昌良, 吴金雨, 等.游离带感觉骨间背侧穿支皮瓣移植修复手指外伤缺损[J].中华手外科杂志, 2019, 35(2):148. [7] 胡长青, 连勇, 白晓亮, 等.游离胸背动脉穿支皮瓣修复小腿远端及足踝部创面九例[J].中华烧伤杂志, 2018, 34(4):240. [8] 徐祥, 李涛, 陈振兵, 等.应用超薄皮瓣技术改进胸背动脉穿支皮瓣的修复效果[J].中华显微外科杂志, 2017, 40(5):438. [9] RETROUVEY H, KERREBIJN I, METCALFE KA, et al.Psychosocial functioning in women with early breast cancer treated with breast surgery with or without immediate breast reconstruction[J].Ann Surg Oncol, 2019, 26(8):2444. doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07251-9 [10] 倪进荣, 滕晓峰, 陈新军, 等.游离骨间背动脉穿支皮瓣移植修复手部中小面积皮肤缺损19例[J].蚌埠医学院学报, 2016, 41(5):45. [11] 周丹亚, 潘佳栋, 胡瑞斌, 等.游离胸背动脉穿支皮瓣在四肢创面修复中的临床应用[J].中华显微外科杂志, 2018, 41(3):243. [12] ZHANG Y, LU L, LU N, et al.Perioperative glucocorticoid treatment of soft tissue reconstruction in patients on long-term steroid therapy:The experience of 6 cases using reversed posterior interosseous flap for hand neoplasm surgery[J].Ann Plast Surg, 2018, 81(3):302. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001534 [13] SEYED JAFARI SM, SHAFIGHI M, BELTRAMINELLI H, et al.Improvement of flap necrosis in a rat random skin flap model by in vivo electroporation-mediated hgf gene transfer[J].Plast Reconstr Surg, 2017, 139(5):1116. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003259 [14] 李连楚, 肖目张, 刘安金, 等.背阔肌肌皮瓣及胸背动脉穿支皮瓣在不同创面中的应用[J].中华整形外科杂志, 2019, 35(3):269. [15] JIANG T, ZHU M, ZAN T, et al.A novel augmented reality-based navigation system in perforator flap transplantation - a feasibility study[J].Ann Plast Surg, 2017, 79(2):192. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001078 [16] 庄加川, 张振伟, 李敏姣, 等.胸背动脉穿支皮瓣修复手部皮肤缺损的临床应用[J].中华手外科杂志, 2018, 34(3):161. [17] 荣存敏, 王芳, 李印龙, 等.急诊、亚急诊桡动脉掌浅支皮瓣修复手指皮肤软组织缺损的疗效比较[J].中华手外科杂志, 2017, 33(4):252.