Cargando…

A study on the therapeutic effects of biplane skin dilator implantation in auricular reconstruction

This study aimed to compare the therapeutic effects of biplane skin dilator implantation with those of conventional skin dilator implantation in auricular reconstruction. A total of 137 patients with microtia who met the inclusion criteria from January 2020 to April 2021 were retrospectively selecte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sun, Pengfei, Lu, Meng, Wang, Changchen, Pan, Bo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8519932/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34654849
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00179-9
Descripción
Sumario:This study aimed to compare the therapeutic effects of biplane skin dilator implantation with those of conventional skin dilator implantation in auricular reconstruction. A total of 137 patients with microtia who met the inclusion criteria from January 2020 to April 2021 were retrospectively selected. Sixty-three patients comprised the control group and were implanted with a skin expander using the conventional method. Seventy-four patients comprised the experimental group and were implanted with a skin expander using the biplane method. Non-parametric tests were used to compare the down-moving distance of the skin dilator between the experimental group and the control group. There was a statistically significant difference in the down-moving distance of the skin dilator between the experimental group and the control group (P < 0.05). The chi-square test showed no significant difference in postoperative complications between the experimental group and the control group (P > 0.05). Moreover, there was no significant difference in the satisfaction rate of patients and their families between the experimental group and the control group (P > 0.05). In this study, the treatment effect of biplane skin dilator implantation was better than that of conventional skin dilator implantation.