Journal of pediatric urology · 2013
Utility of tissue expansion in pediatric phallic reconstruction: a 10-year experience.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rochlin D H, Zhang K, Gearhart J P, Rad A, Kelamis A, Mathews R, Redett R J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Boys with complex penile anomalies often undergo multiple operations, leaving a paucity of unscarred skin for further reconstructive procedures. Our objective was to evaluate the ability of tissue expansion to provide local skin for successful phallic reconstruction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty boys (mean age of 11.9 years) with hypospadias (n = 42) or epispadias (n = 38) formed the study cohort. All patients had undergone at least one failed reconstructive operation. Indications for tissue expansion included scarcity of penile skin with urethral stenosis, urethrocutaneous fistula, chordee, and/or residual defect. One or two expanders were placed under the skin of the penile shaft and removed at the time of reconstruction.
RESULTS: Average time between expander placement and reconstruction was 10.9 weeks. Mean follow-up time was 25.3 months. Complications during expansion occurred in 33 patients (41.3%). Twenty-two patients (27.5%) had at least one expander removed prematurely and 46.9% were replaced. Expansion yielded adequate tissue for reconstruction in 76 patients (95.0%). Successful outcomes were achieved in 39 patients after initial reconstruction and 25 patients after further intervention, yielding an overall success rate of 80.0%.
CONCLUSION: Tissue expansion is a useful tool with an acceptable rate of complications for phallic reconstruction in patients who have failed prior surgical reconstruction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty boys (mean age of 11.9 years) with hypospadias (n = 42) or epispadias (n = 38) formed the study cohort. All patients had undergone at least one failed reconstructive operation. Indications for tissue expansion included scarcity of penile skin with urethral stenosis, urethrocutaneous fistula, chordee, and/or residual defect. One or two expanders were placed under the skin of the penile shaft and removed at the time of reconstruction.
RESULTS: Average time between expander placement and reconstruction was 10.9 weeks. Mean follow-up time was 25.3 months. Complications during expansion occurred in 33 patients (41.3%). Twenty-two patients (27.5%) had at least one expander removed prematurely and 46.9% were replaced. Expansion yielded adequate tissue for reconstruction in 76 patients (95.0%). Successful outcomes were achieved in 39 patients after initial reconstruction and 25 patients after further intervention, yielding an overall success rate of 80.0%.
CONCLUSION: Tissue expansion is a useful tool with an acceptable rate of complications for phallic reconstruction in patients who have failed prior surgical reconstruction.