中国美容医学2026，Vol.35Issue(2)：26-30,5.
超声高频外科集成系统与传统电刀在皮瓣移植中的应用效果对比
Comparison of Application Effects between Ultrasonic Surgical & Electrosurgical Generator and Traditional Electrosurgical Generator in Flap Transplantation
摘要
Abstract
Objective To compare the difference of ultrasonic surgical & electrosurgical generator and traditional electrosurgical generator in flap preparation,and to provide basis for the application of ultrasonic surgical & electrosurgical generator in flap preparation.Methods Ninety-eight patients who underwent flap transplantation surgery in the Department from January 2021 to September 2024 were selected as the study subjects.They were randomly divided into a research group and a control group,with 49 patients in each group,according to the random number table method.The control group used the traditional electrosurgical generator in the flap preparation process,while the study group used the ultrasonic surgical & electrosurgical generator.The flap preparation time,intraoperative blood loss,donor site drainage volume,donor site drainage tube indwelling days,postoperative 3 d pain level,flap blood supply status(incidence rate of vascular crisis),flap survival rate and other complications were compared between the two groups.Results The flap preparation time was(48.98±5.08)min in control group and(44.00±3.25)min in study group.The intraoperative blood loss was(114.78±7.07)ml in control group and(105.43±7.35)ml in study group.The donor site drainage volume was(181.67±15.73)ml in control group and(159.67±14.49)ml in study group.The donor site drainage tube indwelling time was(4.08±0.81)d in control group and(3.12±0.78)d in study group.The pain score of the control group was(4.08±0.69)points in control group and(3.29±0.59)points in study group.The incidence rate of vascular crisis was 16.33％in control group and 4.08％in study group.The incidence rate of vascular crisis in study group was lower than that in control group.The flap survival rate was 79.59％in control group and 93.88％in study group.The above indicators were superior to those in control group(all P＜0.05).No other complications such as sub-flap hematoma,flap avulsion,or flap infection occurred in either group.Conclusion Ultrasonic surgical & electrosurgical generator is superior to traditional electrosurgical generator in flap preparation and transplantation,and has the value of clinical application.关键词
超声高频外科集成系统/传统电刀/皮瓣制备/软组织缺损/皮瓣移植Key words
ultrasonic surgical & electrosurgical generator/traditional electrosurgical generator/flap preparation/skin and soft tissue defects/flap transplantation分类
医药卫生引用本文复制引用
冯佳雄,黄晓涛,许研然,孙泽光,陈杰..超声高频外科集成系统与传统电刀在皮瓣移植中的应用效果对比[J].中国美容医学,2026,35(2):26-30,5.基金项目
汕头市科技计划医疗卫生项目(编号:221106186495824) （编号:221106186495824）
