穿支皮瓣修复和常规方法在手外伤患者疗效对比

Comparison of perforator flap repair and conventional methods in hand trauma

目的:探讨穿支皮瓣修复和常规方法在手外伤患者中的临床效果。方法:取2015-01~2016-10医院收治的手外伤患者60例,随机数字法分为对照组(n=30)和观察组(n=30)。对照组采用常规方法修复,观察组采用穿支皮瓣修复,比较2组修复效果。结果:2组VAS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组治疗后VAS评分为(1.93±0.74)分,对照组为(3.26±0.91)分,2组治疗后VAS评分比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组治疗后1例发生皮瓣肿胀,0例皮瓣感染,1例皮瓣边缘坏死,发生率为6.67%,低于对照组的13.33%(2例发生皮瓣肿胀,1例皮瓣感染,1例皮瓣边缘坏死)(P<0.05)。结论:手外伤患者采用穿支皮瓣修复效果理想,成活率高,有助于手部功能恢复,值得推广应用。

Objective:To investigate the clinical effect of perforator flap repair and conventional methods in patients with hand trauma.Methods:60 patients with hand trauma were selected from the first affiliated hospital between January 2015 and October 2016.Patients were randomly divided into control group(n=30) and observation group(n=30).Conventional repair method was administrated to control group patients,and perforator flap repair method was administrated to observation group patients.The clinical effect of these two methods was compared.Results:There was no significant difference in VAS score between two groups(P>0.05) before treatment;The VAS score was 1.93±0.74 and 3.26±0.91 in observation group and control group respectively after treatment.The difference of VAS score in two groups had statistical significance(P<0.05).The observation group had 1 case of flap swelling,none skin flap infection,1 case skin flap necrosis after treatment.The incidence was 6.67% which was lower than 13.33% in control group(2 cases of flap swelling,1 case of skin flap infection,1 case of flap edge necrosis)(P<0.05).Conclusion:Perforator flap repair may be the ideal treatment for patients with hand trauma because of the high survival rate,good recovery of hand function,and is worthy of popularization and application.