| Literature DB >> 35992542 |
Liming Xu1, Jianshun Zhang2, Faliang Shi3, Renkuan Wang1, Jianyan Wu4.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of lateral circumflex femoral artery embedded with fascia lata flap in the repair of skin and tendon defects in hand, foot, and ankle. From January 2020 to June 2021, 32 patients with skin and tendon defects of the hand, foot, and ankle admitted to our hospital were selected as the study subjects. According to the random number table method, they were divided into the observation group (16 cases, treated with rotational lateral femoral vascular inlay broad fascial flap repair) and the control group (16 cases, treated with conventional skin flap repair) and followed up for 6 months. The postoperative tendon midactivity measurement scale (TAM), ankle-hindfoot scoring system (AOFAS), and lower limb functional evaluation scale (LEFS) scores were all higher in the observer group than in the control group The number of people with infection, implant necrosis, and subcutaneous hematoma in the observation group (total incidence 6.25%) was less (lower) than that in the control group (50.00%), and the total number of people with significant and fair clinical efficacy in the observation group (total effective rate 100.00%) was more (higher) than that in the control group (68.75%). The application of early plastic surgery to the clinical treatment of patients with deep burns on the hand can reduce the patient's pain and promote the healing of the wound. It is of great significance to reduce the risk of complications such as necrosis of the skin graft and improve the efficacy of the surgery.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35992542 PMCID: PMC9356846 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2874332
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Comparison of basic data between the two groups (x̅ ± s, n).
| Group |
| Age (years) | Lesion area (cm2) | Tendon defect length (cm) | Gender composition | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Average | Scope | Average | Scope | Average | Male | Female | ||
| Observation group | 16 | 20–65 | 42.53 ± 7.76 | 30–128 | 79.09 ± 7.06 | 2–12 | 7.05 ± 1.04 | 10 (62.50%) | 6 (37.50%) |
| Control group | 16 | 18–61 | 39.57 ± 3.65 | 28–132 | 80.04 ± 8.12 | 2–11 | 6.59 ± 0.78 | 9 (56.25%) | 7 (43.75%) |
| Χ2/ | — | 1.381 | 0.353 | 1.415 | 0.130 | ||||
|
| — | 0.178 | 0.726 | 0.167 | 0.719 | ||||
Comparison of functional recovery of the two groups (x̅ ± s, points).
| Group |
| TAM | AOFSA | LEFS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preop | Postop | Preop | Postop | Preop | Postop | ||
| Observation group | 16 | 0.98 ± 0.23 | 2.46 ± 0.31 | 48.83 ± 5.34 | 76.43 ± 6.89 | 43.64 ± 5.46 | 71.24 ± 6.75 |
| Control group | 16 | 0.95 ± 0.18 | 1.62 ± 0.28 | 49.03 ± 5.83 | 66.82 ± 5.97 | 44.01 ± 6.04 | 62.11 ± 6.43 |
|
| — | 0.411 | 8.043 | 0.101 | 4.217 | 0.182 | 3.917 |
|
| — | 0.684 | 0.001 | 0.920 | 0.001 | 0.857 | 0.001 |
Comparison of complications between the two groups [n, (%)].
| Group | Number of subjects | Infection | Skin graft necrosis | Subcutaneous hematoma | Total occurrence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 16 | 1 (6.25%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (6.25%) |
| Control group | 16 | 4 (25.00%) | 2 (12.50%) | 2 (12.50%) | 8 (50.00%) |
| Χ2 | — | 2.133 | 2.133 | 2.133 | 7.930 |
|
| — | 0.144 | 0.144 | 0.144 | 0.047 |
Clinical efficacy comparison between the two groups (n, (%)).
| Group |
| Significant | General | Poor | Overall response rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 16 | 9 (56.25%) | 7 (43.75%) | 0 | 16 (100.00%) |
| Control group | 16 | 2 (12.50%) | 9 (56.25%) | 5 (31.25%) | 11 (68.75%) |
| Χ2 | — | 6.788 | 0.500 | 5.926 | 9.705 |
|
| — | 0.009 | 0.480 | 0.015 | 1.8 |