| Literature DB >> 35655720 |
Jie Chen1, Chao Xiao1, Na Su1, Yubo Han1, Zhai Liang1, Chao Han2, Wenjuan Yu1.
Abstract
This study investigates the efficacy, healing efficiency, and safety of skin orbicularis oculi muscle combined with tissue flap repair for eyelid trauma patients. According to the different methods of surgical intervention, this study chooses 78 cases of eyelid injury patients. This study sets up the joint intervention group and the routine repair group, including the joint intervention group adopting the orbicularis oculi muscle skin of composite tissue flap to repair surgery. The routine repair group is treated by conventional repair skin flap transfer operation. Spearman correlation coefficient is used to analyze the correlation between postoperative healing of eyelid trauma patients and quality of life (SF-36) and self-image satisfaction (BIS) scale scores. The surgical intervention of skin orbicularis oculi muscle combined with tissue flap for patients with eyelid trauma has a better plastic repair effect in clinical practice. It can also effectively reduce the risk of postoperative complications, which is conducive to improve the postoperative quality of life and self-image satisfaction of patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35655720 PMCID: PMC9142311 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3466070
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Comparison of postoperative complications (n, %).
| Group | Eyelid ectropion | Eyelid varus | Occurrence edema | Total occurrence ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combined intervention group ( | 1 (2.56) | 2 (5.13) | 0 (0.00) | 3 (7.69) |
| Routine repair group ( | 5 (12.82) | 4 (10.26) | 2 (5.13) | 12 (30.77) |
|
| — | — | — | 6.686 |
|
| — | — | — | 0.010 |
Comparison of healing of the damaged site between the two groups 3 months after surgery (n, %).
| Group | Class A healing | Class B healing | Class C healing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Combined intervention group ( | 34 (87.18) | 3 (7.69) | 2 (5.13) |
| Routine repair group ( | 19 (48.72) | 10 (25.64) | 10 (25.64) |
|
| 4.769 | ||
|
| <0.001 | ||
Comparison of SF-36 and BIS scores .
| Group | SF-36 scale | The BIS score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before the operation | After the operation | Before the operation | After the operation | |
| Combined intervention group ( | 62.41 ± 2.41 | 77.21 ± 4.58 | 15.10 ± 1.16 | 7.52 ± 0.66 |
| Routine repair group ( | 61.81 ± 1.78 | 69.80 ± 3.04 | 15.23 ± 1.04 | 9.20 ± 0.86 |
|
| 1.251 | 8.418 | −0.521 | −9.678 |
|
| 0.215 | <0.001 | 0.604 | <0.001 |
Correlation of healing degree with SF-36 and BIS scores.
| Degree of patient healing | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| SF-36 scale | 0.704 | <0.001 |
| The BIS score | −0.810 | <0.001 |