简单再植是带蒂耳廓撕脱术的可行选择吗?文献系统综述。

IF 0.4 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction Pub Date : 2025-08-27 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.3390/cmtr18030036
Jose Carlos Román Padilla, Luis Ortiz Peces, Pol Alavedra Martínez, Jose Luis Cebrián Carretero
{"title":"简单再植是带蒂耳廓撕脱术的可行选择吗?文献系统综述。","authors":"Jose Carlos Román Padilla, Luis Ortiz Peces, Pol Alavedra Martínez, Jose Luis Cebrián Carretero","doi":"10.3390/cmtr18030036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Auricular avulsion injuries are rare, and microvascular reimplantation is considered the preferred treatment according to current literature. However, when a small skin pedicle is preserved, non-microvascular reattachment techniques may offer comparable outcomes. This systematic review aims to assess whether these techniques could represent a viable alternative. We analyzed 32 cases of pedicled auricular avulsion reported in 16 articles, focusing on patient demographics, injury mechanisms, pedicle characteristics, venous congestion, and postoperative management. Venous congestion occurred in 11 patients, with a significantly higher risk in narrower pedicles (mean width 9.82 mm; 95% CI: 4.75-14.89; <i>p</i> = 0.025). Prophylactic heparin significantly reduced this risk (<i>p</i> = 0.007). Other interventions-leech therapy and hyperbaric oxygen-lacked sufficient data for firm conclusions. Most cases achieved graft survival; necrosis occurred in some, and only two patients required additional surgery. Non-microvascular techniques appear to be a viable alternative to microvascular reimplantation, with similar results and potentially fewer complications. Venous congestion remains the main challenge, requiring active management and hospitalization for monitoring. Limited case series and publication bias still hinder the development of standardized guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":46447,"journal":{"name":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","volume":"18 3","pages":"36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12452382/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Simple Reimplantation a Viable Option in Pediculated Auricular Avulsions? A Systematic Review of the Literature.\",\"authors\":\"Jose Carlos Román Padilla, Luis Ortiz Peces, Pol Alavedra Martínez, Jose Luis Cebrián Carretero\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/cmtr18030036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Auricular avulsion injuries are rare, and microvascular reimplantation is considered the preferred treatment according to current literature. However, when a small skin pedicle is preserved, non-microvascular reattachment techniques may offer comparable outcomes. This systematic review aims to assess whether these techniques could represent a viable alternative. We analyzed 32 cases of pedicled auricular avulsion reported in 16 articles, focusing on patient demographics, injury mechanisms, pedicle characteristics, venous congestion, and postoperative management. Venous congestion occurred in 11 patients, with a significantly higher risk in narrower pedicles (mean width 9.82 mm; 95% CI: 4.75-14.89; <i>p</i> = 0.025). Prophylactic heparin significantly reduced this risk (<i>p</i> = 0.007). Other interventions-leech therapy and hyperbaric oxygen-lacked sufficient data for firm conclusions. Most cases achieved graft survival; necrosis occurred in some, and only two patients required additional surgery. Non-microvascular techniques appear to be a viable alternative to microvascular reimplantation, with similar results and potentially fewer complications. Venous congestion remains the main challenge, requiring active management and hospitalization for monitoring. Limited case series and publication bias still hinder the development of standardized guidelines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"36\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12452382/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/cmtr18030036\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/cmtr18030036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

耳廓撕脱伤是罕见的,根据目前的文献,微血管再植被认为是首选的治疗方法。然而,当小的皮肤蒂被保留时,非微血管再植技术可能提供类似的结果。本系统综述旨在评估这些技术是否可以作为一种可行的替代方案。我们分析了16篇文章中报道的32例带蒂耳廓撕脱伤,重点分析了患者人口统计学、损伤机制、蒂特征、静脉充血和术后处理。11例患者发生静脉充血,椎弓根较窄(平均宽度9.82 mm; 95% CI: 4.75-14.89; p = 0.025)的风险明显较高。预防性使用肝素可显著降低这一风险(p = 0.007)。其他干预措施——水蛭疗法和高压氧疗法——缺乏足够的数据来得出确切的结论。大多数病例移植后存活;部分患者出现坏死,只有两名患者需要额外手术。非微血管技术似乎是一种可行的替代微血管再植,具有相似的结果,潜在的并发症更少。静脉充血仍然是主要的挑战,需要积极的管理和住院监测。有限的病例序列和发表偏倚仍然阻碍了标准化指南的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Is Simple Reimplantation a Viable Option in Pediculated Auricular Avulsions? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Is Simple Reimplantation a Viable Option in Pediculated Auricular Avulsions? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Is Simple Reimplantation a Viable Option in Pediculated Auricular Avulsions? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Is Simple Reimplantation a Viable Option in Pediculated Auricular Avulsions? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Auricular avulsion injuries are rare, and microvascular reimplantation is considered the preferred treatment according to current literature. However, when a small skin pedicle is preserved, non-microvascular reattachment techniques may offer comparable outcomes. This systematic review aims to assess whether these techniques could represent a viable alternative. We analyzed 32 cases of pedicled auricular avulsion reported in 16 articles, focusing on patient demographics, injury mechanisms, pedicle characteristics, venous congestion, and postoperative management. Venous congestion occurred in 11 patients, with a significantly higher risk in narrower pedicles (mean width 9.82 mm; 95% CI: 4.75-14.89; p = 0.025). Prophylactic heparin significantly reduced this risk (p = 0.007). Other interventions-leech therapy and hyperbaric oxygen-lacked sufficient data for firm conclusions. Most cases achieved graft survival; necrosis occurred in some, and only two patients required additional surgery. Non-microvascular techniques appear to be a viable alternative to microvascular reimplantation, with similar results and potentially fewer complications. Venous congestion remains the main challenge, requiring active management and hospitalization for monitoring. Limited case series and publication bias still hinder the development of standardized guidelines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信