A prospective study on the expansion rule of the directional skin and soft tissue expander in abdominal scar reconstruction

Xue Jidong; Liang Yan; Xing Peipeng; Di Haiping; Zhang Jian; Yang Gaoyuan; Xia Chengde

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20211123-00392

Volume 39 Issue 2

Feb. 2023

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Article Navigation > CHINESE JOURNAL OF BURNS AND WOUNDS > 2023 > 39(2): 150-157

Xue JD,Liang Y,Xing PP,et al.A prospective study on the expansion rule of the directional skin and soft tissue expander in abdominal scar reconstruction[J].Chin J Burns Wounds,2023,39(2):150-157.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20211123-00392.

Citation:

PDF( 4012 KB)

A prospective study on the expansion rule of the directional skin and soft tissue expander in abdominal scar reconstruction

doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20211123-00392

Department of Burns, Zhengzhou First People's Hospital, Zhengzhou 450004, China

Funds:

The Joint Project of Henan Medical Science and Technology Research Program of China LHGJ20190999

Science and Technology Development Plan of Henan Province of China in 2019 192102310368

More Information

Corresponding author: Xia Chengde, Email: 2273451508@qq.com
Received Date: 2021-11-23

Abstract

Abstract

Objective To observe the expansion rule of directional skin and soft tissue expander (hereinafter referred to as expander) in abdominal scar reconstruction. Methods A prospective self-controlled study was conducted. Twenty patients with abdominal scar who met the inclusion criteria and admitted to Zhengzhou First People's Hospital from January 2018 to December 2020 were selected by random number table method, including 5 males and 15 females, aged 12-51 (31±12) years, with 12 patients of type Ⅰ scar and 8 patients of type Ⅱ scar. In the first stage, two or three expanders with rated capacity of 300-600 mL were placed on both sides of the scar, of which at least one expander had rated capacity of 500 mL (as the follow-up observation object). After the sutures were removed, water injection treatment was started, with the expansion time of 4 to 6 months. After the water injection volume reached 2.0 times of the rated capacity of expander, abdominal scar excision+expander removal+local expanded flap transfer repair was performed in the second stage. The skin surface area at the expansion site was measured respectively when the water injection volume reached 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, and 2.0 times of the rated capacity of expander, and the skin expansion rate of the expansion site at corresponding multiples of expansion (1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, and 2.0 times) and adjacent multiple intervals (1.0-1.2, 1.2-1.5, 1.5-1.8, and 1.8-2.0 times) were calculated. The skin surface area of the repaired site at 0 (immediately), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months after operation, and the skin shrinkage rate of the repaired site at different time points (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months after operation) and different time periods (0-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, and 5-6 months after operation) were calculated. Data were statistically analyzed with analysis of variance for repeated measurement and least significant difference-t test. Results Compared with the expansion of 1.0 time ((287.6±2.2) cm² and (47.0±0.7)%), the skin surface area and expansion rate of the expansion site of patients ((315.8±2.1), (356.1±2.8), (384.9±1.6), and (386.2±1.5) cm², (51.7±0.6)%, (57.2±0.6)%, (60.4±0.6)%, and (60.5±0.6)%) were significantly increased when the expansion reached 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, and 2.0 times (with t values of 46.04, 90.38, 150.14, 159.55, 45.11, 87.83, 135.82, and 118.48, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with the expansion of 1.2 times, the skin surface area and expansion rate of the expansion site of patients were significantly increased when the expansion reached 1.5, 1.8, and 2.0 times (with t values of 49.82, 109.64, 122.14, 144.19, 49.51, and 105.85, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with the expansion of 1.5 times, the skin surface area and expansion rate of the expansion site of patients were significantly increased when the expansion reached 1.8 times (with t values of 38.93 and 39.22, respectively, P<0.05) and 2.0 times (with t values of 38.37 and 38.78, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with the expansion of 1.8 times, the skin surface area and expansion rate of the expansion site of patients both had no statistically significant differences when the expansion reached 2.0 times (with t values of 4.71 and 4.72, respectively, P>0.05). Compared with the expansion of 1.0-1.2 times, the skin expansion rate of the expansion site of patient was significantly increased when the expansion reached 1.2-1.5 times (t=6.95, P<0.05), while the skin expansion rate of the expansion site of patient was significantly decreased when the expansion reached 1.5-1.8 and 1.8-2.0 times (with t values of 5.89 and 40.75, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with the expansion of 1.2-1.5 times, the skin expansion rate of the expansion site of patient was significantly decreased when the expansion reached 1.5-1.8 and 1.8-2.0 times (with t values of 10.50 and 41.92, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with the expansion of 1.5-1.8 times, the skin expansion rate of the expansion site of patient was significantly decreased when the expansion reached 1.8-2.0 times (t=32.60, P<0.05). Compared with 0 month after operation, the skin surface area of the repaired site of patient at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months after operation was significantly decreased (with t values of 61.66, 82.70, 96.44, 102.81, 104.51, and 102.21, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with 1 month after operation, the skin surface area of the repaired site of patient was significantly decreased at 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 months after operation (with t values of 37.37, 64.64, 69.40, 72.46, and 72.62, respectively, P<0.05), while the skin shrinkage rate was significantly increased (with t values of 32.29, 50.00, 52.67, 54.76, and 54.62, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with 2 months after operation, the skin surface area of the repaired site of patient was significantly decreased at 3, 4, 5, and 6 months after operation (with t values of 52.41, 60.41, 70.30, and 65.32, respectively, P<0.05), while the skin shrinkage rate was significantly increased (with t values of 52.97, 59.29, 69.68, and 64.50, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with 3 months after operation, the skin surface area of the repaired site of patient was significantly decreased at 4, 5, and 6 months after operation (with t values of 5.53, 38.00, and 38.52, respectively, P<0.05), while the skin shrinkage rate was significantly increased (with t values of 25.36, 38.59, and 37.47, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with 4 months after operation, the skin surface area (with t values of 41.10 and 50.50, respectively, P>0.05) and skin shrinkage rate (with t values of 48.09 and 50.00, respectively, P>0.05) of the repaired site of patients at 5 and 6 months after operation showed no statistically significant differences. Compared with 5 months after operation, the skin surface area and skin shrinkage rate of the repaired site of patient at 6 months after operation showed no statistically significant differences (with t values of 9.40 and 9.59, respectively, P>0.05). Compared with 0-1 month after operation, the skin shrinkage rate of the repaired site of patient at 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, and 5-6 months after operation was significantly decreased (with t values of 13.56, 40.00, 49.21, 53.97, and 57.68, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with 1-2 months after operation, the skin shrinkage rate of the repaired site of patients at 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, and 5-6 months after operation was significantly decreased (with t values of 12.37, 27.72, 30.16, and 31.67, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with 2-3 months after operation, the skin shrinkage rate of the repaired site of patients at 3-4, 4-5, and 5-6 months after operation was significantly decreased (with t values of 33.73, 41.31, and 54.10, respectively, P<0.05). Compared with 3-4 months after operation, the skin shrinkage rate of the repaired site of patient at 4-5 and 5-6 months after operation showed no statistically significant differences (with t values of 10.90 and 23.60, respectively, P>0.05). Compared with 4-5 months after operation, the skin shrinkage rate of the repaired site of patient at 5-6 months after operation showed no statistically significant difference (t=20.90, P>0.05). Conclusions The expander can effectively expand the abdominal skin, thus repairing the abdominal scar deformity. Maintained expansion for one month after the water injection expansion reaches 1.8 times of the rated capacity of the expander can be set as a phase Ⅱ operation node.
- Cicatrix,
- Dilatation,
- Tissue expansion devices,
- Abdomen,
- Expansion efficiency

FullText(HTML)

References(26)

References

[1]	林燕娴,宋维铭.扩张皮瓣血运障碍监测技术及防治研究进展[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2018,32(1):118-124. DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.201708056.
[2]	陶思一,马红丽,程新德,等.皮肤软组织扩张术在面部瘢痕修复中的应用[J].蚌埠医学院学报,2010,35(4):389-390. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2200.2010.04.024.
[3]	殷国前,滕晓颦,王刚,等.定向与非定向皮肤扩张的临床应用及组织学改变[J].中国组织工程研究与临床康复,2011,15(7):1305-1308.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-8225.2011.07.037.
[4]	袁文达,齐向东,张斌.计算机辅助技术在软组织扩张术中的临床应用[J].中国美容整形外科杂志,2016,27(5):300-303. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-7040.2016.05.014.
[5]	付时章,殷国前,杨晓楠.定向皮肤扩张器在面颈部瘢痕治疗中的应用[J].中国美容医学,2006,15(3):276-278,中插4.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-6455.2006.03.022.
[6]	鲁开化, 郭树忠, 韩岩,等. 皮肤软组织扩张术临床应用经验总结[J]. 中国美容医学, 2007, 16(11):1476-1480. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-6455.2007.11.002.
[7]	王占统,丁健科,余州,等.扩张术修复头面部瘢痕的临床应用进展[J].中华实验外科杂志,2020,37(7):1379-1383.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn421213-20191230-00925.
[8]	董琛,余州,马显杰.皮肤软组织扩张方法与机制的研究进展[J].中华实验外科杂志,2019,36(8):1513-1517.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-9030.2019.08.057.
[9]	刘士强, 马显杰. 皮肤软组织扩张术的应用进展与展望[J]. 中华整形外科杂志,2019,35(10): 949-952. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-4598.2019.10.001.
[10]	王欢,范飞,王盛,等.腹部皮肤软组织扩张术的效果观察[J].中国美容医学,2011,20(6):909-911. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-6455.2011.06.010.
[11]	PamplonaDC,WeberHI,LetaFR.Optimization of the use of skin expanders[J].Skin Res Technol,2014,20(4):463-472.DOI: 10.1111/srt.12141.
[12]	黄长瑾,宋维铭.皮肤软组织扩张术:历史、发展、技术变革及临床应用创新[J].中国组织工程研究,2018,22(8):1267-1274. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.0147.
[13]	宋成,殷培培,孙颖.皮肤软组织扩张技术在面颈部瘢痕手术中的应用效果及对瘢痕恢复的影响研究[J].中国医疗美容,2019,9(2):48-52.DOI: 10.19593/j.issn.2095-0721.2019.02.014.
[14]	刘柳,蔡国斌,陈光宇,等.重复皮肤组织扩张术的临床、生物力学及病理观察[J].中华医学美学美容杂志,2008,14(2):82-84. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0290.2008.02.004.
[15]	宋慧锋,柴家科,陈敏亮,等.垂直微创切口皮肤软组织扩张器置入术[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2006,20(1):86-87.
[16]	董琛,余州,刘维,等.皮肤软组织扩张器置入部位感染风险的临床预测模型的构建与验证[J].中华烧伤杂志,2021,37(9):846-852.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501120-20200619-00314.
[17]	蒋永能,王会军,赵炳瑜,等.皮肤软组织扩张术在颈部瘢痕修复中的应用[J].中华整形外科杂志,2019,35(5):447-450.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-4598.2019.05.006.
[18]	KarimiH,LatifiNA,MomeniM,et al.Tissue expanders; review of indications, results and outcome during 15 years' experience[J].Burns,2019,45(4):990-1004.DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2018.11.017.
[19]	毛立亭,盛炜,于洪亮.扩张皮肤组织在头面颈部整形修复中的应用[J].实用临床医药杂志,2017,21(13):150-151.DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.201713048.
[20]	黄天翔,胡瑞斌,周丹亚,等.软组织扩张器的应用进展[J].中国美容整形外科杂志,2022,33(3):192,后插3-1-后插3-3.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-7040.2022.03.020.
[21]	徐昆明,黎洪棉,罗志军,等.皮肤软组织扩张器压力的实验研究[J].中国修复重建外科杂志,2013,27(3):316-319. DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.20130073.
[22]	刘志飞,乔群,李晖,等.皮肤软组织扩张器注水量与扩张面积的关系[J].中华医学美学美容杂志,2001,7(1):4-6. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0290.2001.01.001.
[23]	施悦.皮肤组织扩张术的临床应用经验[J].中国美容医学,2009,18(1):105-106. DOI: DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-6455.2009.01.047.
[24]	常谨,刘硕,徐殿国,等.不同皮肤扩张方式对皮瓣的超微结构和回缩率的影响[J].现代口腔医学杂志,2012,26(5):322-325.
[25]	谢锋, 张正文, 马腾霄,等. 皮肤扩张移植后组织学实验研究[J]. 中华实验外科杂志, 2014, 31(3):529-531. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1001-9030.2014.03.028.
[26]	范志宏,崔磊,刘凯.扩张皮肤回缩机理的实验研究[J].中华整形外科杂志,2000,16(3):143-145,插页(9). DOI: 10.3760/j.issn:1009-4598.2000.03.004.