Abstract
目的
探讨采用抗菌可吸收缝线拉拢闭合术修复正中开胸术后因胸骨深部伤口感染致小范围骨缺损创面的效果。
方法
该研究为回顾性非随机临床对照研究。将2017年10月—2021年12月南方医科大学附属广东省人民医院(以下简称本院)收治的32例[男20例、女12例,年龄(58±11)岁]符合入选标准且实施抗菌可吸收缝线拉拢闭合术(以下简称直接闭合术)的患者纳入直接闭合组,将2015年1月—2020年1月本院收治的39例[男27例、女12例,年龄(59±11)岁]符合入选标准且实施双侧胸大肌肌瓣填塞修复术的患者纳入肌瓣填塞组。Ⅰ期对胸骨感染创面彻底清创后行Ⅱ期创面修复术。2组患者清创后的胸骨横截面缺损宽度均 < 1 cm。直接闭合组患者的Ⅱ期创面修复术为采用双线间断缝合胸骨前板或胸骨全层6处或7处。统计2组患者Ⅱ期创面修复术的时长及术中出血量、住院时间以及创面感染细菌情况。统计2组患者术后并发症情况及创面愈合情况。随访时,观察2组患者创面是否存在感染或复发情况以及直接闭合组患者胸骨愈合情况。
结果
与肌瓣填塞组相比,直接闭合组患者Ⅱ期创面修复术的时长和住院时间均明显缩短(t值分别为13.61、6.25,P < 0.05)、Ⅱ期创面修复术的术中出血量无明显变化(P > 0.05)。2组患者感染的细菌以葡萄球菌为主。直接闭合组中1例患者术后2周创面处有渗液,经保守换药治疗2周后创面愈合良好;其余患者创面均愈合良好。肌瓣填塞组中5例患者出现术后并发症,其中1例患者死亡、4例患者创面经换药或再次手术后愈合;其余患者创面均愈合良好。2组患者并发症发生情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。随访22~45个月,直接闭合组患者与肌瓣填塞组存活患者创面均未见再次感染或复发。直接闭合组患者胸骨均达到解剖愈合。
结论
直接闭合术不仅能在早期有效修复正中开胸术后因胸骨深部伤口感染致胸骨横截面缺损宽度 < 1 cm的创面,而且能显著缩短患者的手术时长和住院时间。
Keywords: 清创术, 胸骨切开术, 外科伤口感染, 抗菌可吸收缝线拉拢闭合, 骨缺损, 创面修复
Abstract
Objective
To investigate the effects of antibacterial absorbable suture closure in the repair of small range of bone defect wounds due to deep sternal wound infection after median thoracotomy.
Methods
This study was a retrospective non-randomized clinical controlled study. A total of 32 patients (20 males and 12 females, aged (58±11) years) who met the inclusion criteria and underwent closure with antibacterial absorbable sutures (hereinafter referred to as direct closure surgery) admitted to Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital of Southern Medical University (hereinafter referred to as our hospital) from October 2017 to December 2021 were included in direct closure group. A total of 39 patients (27 males and 12 females, aged (59±11) years) who met the inclusion criteria and received bilateral pectoralis major muscle flap packing repair admitted to our hospital from January 2015 to January 2020, were included in muscle flap packing group. In the two groups, sternal infected wounds were thoroughly debrided during stage Ⅰ surgery, followed by wound repair during stage Ⅱ surgery. The width of sternal cross-section defects after debridement was less than 1 cm for patients in the two groups. For patients in direct closure group, stage Ⅱ wound repair involved intermittent sutures to the anterior sternal plate or full-thickness sternum with a total of 6 or 7 double sternal sutures. Relevant data including the duration of the stage Ⅱ wound repair surgery and the volume of blood loss during surgery, length of hospital stay, and bacterial wound infection of patients in the two groups were recorded. The postoperative complications and wound healing of patients in the two groups were recorded. During follow-up, the wound infection or recurrence of patients in the two groups and the sternal healing of patients in direct closure group were observed.
Results
Compared with those in muscle flap packing group, the duration of stage Ⅱ wound repair surgery and length of hospital stay of patients in direct closure group were significantly shorter (with t values of 13.61 and 6.25, respectively, P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference in intraoperative blood loss volume of the stage Ⅱ wound repair surgery between the two groups (P > 0.05). The main bacterial infection in the two groups was Staphylococcus. In direct closure group, one patient had exudation in the wound two weeks post-operation, however the wound healed well after two weeks of conservative dressing changes; the wounds of the other patients healed well. In muscle flap packing group, 5 patients had postoperative complications, of which one patient died, and the wounds of 4 patients healed after dressing change or reoperation; the wounds of the other patients healed well. There was no statistically significant difference in complication incidence of patients between the two groups (P > 0.05). During the follow-up of 22-45 months, there was no re-infection or recurrence in the wound of patients in direct closure group and surviving patients in muscle flap packing group, the sternum of patients in the direct closure group achieved anatomical union.
Conclusions
Direct closure surgery can not only effectively repair sternal cross-sectional defects with width below 1 cm due to deep sternal wound infections after median thoracotomy, but can also significantly shorten the operation time and duration of hospitalization.
Keywords: Debridement, Sternotomy, Surgical wound infection, Anti-microbial absorbable suture closure, Bone defect, Wound repair
正中开胸术是暴露心脏的主要手术方式,因疾病及手术本身的复杂性,术后较易出现各种并发症,其中胸骨深部伤口感染(deep sternal wound infection,DSWI)是严重的并发症之一[1-2]。DSWI的存在可导致胸部切口迁延不愈,如果未有效控制,最终难以避免地会导致胸骨骨髓炎或纵隔炎。近年来多中心的流行病学调查显示,DSWI的发生率在1%~10%[1-4],其危险因素包括高龄、糖尿病、肥胖、吸烟、感染金黄色葡萄球菌、机械通气时间延长、胸骨不稳定和出血再次探查[2,5-7]。根据近年的报道,DSWI患者的病死率为3%~20%[2,8-9],行大血管置换的高危DSWI患者病死率甚至可高达75%[10]。
积极清创并使用肌皮瓣覆盖胸骨缺损是目前治疗DSWI的金标准。此外,采用胸大肌肌瓣[11-14]、背阔肌肌瓣[15]、腹直肌肌瓣[16]、游离皮瓣[17],甚至大网膜[18]等覆盖胸骨缺损的研究均有报道。采用肌皮瓣覆盖胸骨缺损,可使DSWI患者的病死率降低至4.8%~10.5%[19]。尽管采用各种组织瓣修复DSWI取得了良好的效果,但胸骨的连续性被破坏,胸骨的解剖愈合会受到影响,且会增加对组织瓣供区的损伤。针对上述问题,有待提出和研究更佳的治疗方案。近10年来,南方医科大学附属广东省人民医院(以下简称本院)收治DSWI患者超过800例,大部分患者早期便出现DSWI的临床症状,在对其胸骨行积极清创后,其切口骨量损失少,一般横截面缺损宽度 < 1 cm,因此存在将胸骨直接拉拢缝合的可行性。
1. 对象与方法
本回顾性非随机临床对照研究经本院审查委员会和伦理委员会批准,批号:GDREC2019541H。同时,按照《赫尔辛基宣言》执行,所有患者均签署了知情同意书。
1.1. 入选标准
纳入标准:(1)年龄14~80岁;(2)因心脏或大血管疾病行正中开胸术后出现DSWI的患者,其中根据临床表现及影像学检查诊断DSWI;(3)胸骨横截面缺损宽度 < 1 cm;(4)心脏术后大血管无吻合口漏,无瓣周漏,修复术前左心室射血分数≥38%。排除标准:临床资料不全者。
1.2. 临床资料及分组
将2017年10月—2021年12月本院收治的32例符合入选标准且实施抗菌可吸收缝线拉拢闭合术(以下简称直接闭合术)的患者纳入直接闭合组,将2015年1月—2020年1月本院收治的39例符合入选标准且实施双侧胸大肌肌瓣填塞修复术(以下简称肌瓣填塞术)的患者纳入肌瓣填塞组。2组患者性别、年龄、心脏手术类型、体重指数、正中开胸术至确诊DSWI时间、有无糖尿病情况比较,差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05),见表 1。
表 1.
2组正中开胸术后因胸骨深部伤口感染(DSWI)致小范围骨缺损创面患者的临床资料比较
Comparison of clinical data between the two groups of patients with small range of bone defect wounds due to deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) after median thoracotomy
| 组别 | 例数 | 性别(例) | 年龄(岁,x±s) | 心脏手术类型(例) | 体重指数(kg/m2,x±s) | 正中开胸术至确诊DSWI时间(d,x±s) | 糖尿病(例) | ||||
| 男 | 女 | 大血管置换术 | 冠脉搭桥术 | 单纯换瓣术 | 有 | 无 | |||||
| 注:采用抗菌可吸收缝线拉拢闭合术、双侧胸大肌肌瓣填塞修复术分别修复直接闭合组、肌瓣填塞组患者创面 | |||||||||||
| 直接闭合组 | 32 | 20 | 12 | 58±11 | 10 | 9 | 13 | 21.9±2.8 | 24±8 | 12 | 20 |
| 肌瓣填塞组 | 39 | 27 | 12 | 59±11 | 5 | 12 | 22 | 23.2±3.0 | 27±14 | 11 | 28 |
| 统计量值 | χ2=0.36 | t=0.68 | χ2=3.76 | t=1.82 | t=0.93 | χ2=0.69 | |||||
| P值 | 0.619 | 0.497 | 0.153 | 0.075 | 0.379 | 0.452 | |||||
1.3. 治疗过程及术后处理
对直接闭合组患者,进行如下处理。Ⅰ期手术:彻底暴露感染胸骨切口,去除钢丝等胸骨固定物、死骨及感染的肉芽肿组织,使用体积分数3%过氧化氢、5 g/L聚维碘酮溶液和生理盐水序贯冲洗创面。使用NPWT治疗1周后进行Ⅱ期创面修复术:再次彻底清创后修整骨缘,采用双线间断缝合法(1-0抗菌薇乔线)进行胸骨缝合,共6处或7处。根据胸骨与心脏的间距,选择缝合胸骨全层或胸骨前板。在胸骨后(前纵隔内)放置引流管,在胸骨复位钳的辅助下,闭合胸骨,缝线打结、固定。同时,也在胸骨前放置引流管,逐层关闭切口。所有患者术后均使用胸带稳定胸廓2个月。
对肌瓣填塞组患者,进行如下处理。Ⅰ期手术同直接闭合组,对患者行彻底清创术。使用NPWT治疗1周后进行Ⅱ期创面修复术:再次彻底清创,松解胸骨并切取两侧全层胸大肌至双侧锁骨中线;于胸骨切口下方留置引流管,将双侧胸大肌向切口中央拉拢,内翻式缝合固定。同时,皮下放置引流管,逐层关闭切口。所有患者术后均使用胸带稳定胸廓2~3个月。
取2组患者Ⅰ期清创的组织标本,进行细菌培养并鉴定细菌种类。所有患者最初使用第三代头孢菌素进行治疗,并根据创面细菌培养结果,选择敏感抗生素治疗超过1周。Ⅱ期创面修复术前,所有患者白细胞计数均不超过12×109/L,且无发热等症状。
1.4. 观察指标
统计2组患者Ⅱ期创面修复术的时长及术中出血量、住院时间以及创面感染细菌情况。统计2组患者术后并发症(如胸骨裂开出血、创面感染或不愈)情况及创面愈合情况。随访时,观察2组患者创面是否存在感染或复发情况以及直接闭合组患者胸骨愈合情况。
1.5. 统计学处理
采用SPSS 24.0统计软件进行数据分析。计量资料数据均符合正态分布,以x±s表示,2组间比较采用独立样本t检验。计数资料数据用频数表示,2组间比较采用χ2检验或Fisher确切概率法检验。P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。
2. 结果
2.1. 一般结果
与肌瓣填塞组相比,直接闭合组患者Ⅱ期创面修复术的时长和住院时间均明显缩短(P < 0.05)、Ⅱ期创面修复术的术中出血量无明显变化(P > 0.05)。直接闭合组患者感染耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌者5例、耐甲氧西林表皮葡萄球菌者3例、金黄色葡萄球菌者1例、表皮葡萄球菌者3例、铜绿假单胞菌者3例、肺炎克雷伯菌者2例、粪肠球菌者1例、沙雷菌者1例、土霉菌者1例、肺炎链球菌者1例,肌瓣填塞组感染耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌者2例、耐甲氧西林表皮葡萄球菌者2例、金黄色葡萄球菌者2例、表皮葡萄球菌者6例、铜绿假单胞菌者2例、肺炎克雷伯菌者2例、粪肠球菌者1例、白色念珠菌者2例、阴沟肠杆菌者1例。直接闭合组中1例患者术后2周创面处有渗液,经保守换药治疗2周后创面愈合良好;其余患者创面均愈合良好。肌瓣填塞组中5例患者出现术后并发症:1例患者因心力衰竭死亡、1例患者创面出现渗液并经保守换药后愈合、2例患者胸骨裂开、1例患者创面出血,后3例患者创面经再次手术修复后愈合;其余患者创面均愈合良好。2组患者并发症发生情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。见表 2。
表 2.
2组正中开胸术后因胸骨深部伤口感染致小范围骨缺损创面患者评价指标比较
Comparison of evaluation indexes between the two groups of patients with small range of bone defect wounds due to deep sternal wound infection after median thoracotomy
| 组别 | 例数 | 手术时长(min,x±s) | 手术术中出血量(mL,x±s) | 住院时间(d,x±s) | 并发症(例) | |
| 有 | 无 | |||||
| 注:采用抗菌可吸收缝线拉拢闭合术、双侧胸大肌肌瓣填塞修复术分别修复直接闭合组、肌瓣填塞组患者创面;手术指Ⅱ期创面修复术;“—”表示无此统计量值 | ||||||
| 直接闭合组 | 32 | 99±15 | 121±70 | 20±5 | 1 | 31 |
| 肌瓣填塞组 | 39 | 165±25 | 140±79 | 37±17 | 5 | 34 |
| t值 | 13.61 | 1.08 | 6.25 | — | ||
| P值 | < 0.001 | 0.291 | < 0.001 | 0.213 | ||
随访22~45个月,直接闭合组患者与肌瓣填塞组存活患者创面均未见再次感染或复发。直接闭合组患者胸骨均达到解剖愈合。
2.2. 典型病例
患者男,44岁,为直接闭合组病例。因正中开胸术后切口裂开伴渗液2周入院。术前行胸部CT确诊为胸骨骨髓炎,术中去除固定钢丝、死骨及感染的肉芽肿组织,采用NPWT治疗1周后行Ⅱ期创面修复术:采用1-0抗菌薇乔线进行胸骨前板双线间断缝合,共7处。于胸骨后放置引流管,在胸骨复位钳的辅助下,闭合胸骨,缝线打结固定。同时,于胸骨前放置引流管,逐层关闭切口。Ⅱ期创面修复术的时长约为110 min,术中出血量为100 mL,细菌培养结果为耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌阳性,术后无并发症,创面愈合良好。术后12个月随访,CT平面、三维重建图显示,胸骨已达到解剖愈合。见图 1、2。
图 1.
采用抗菌可吸收缝线拉拢闭合术修复正中开胸术后因胸骨深部伤口感染致小范围骨缺损患者创面的效果。1A.彻底清创后,胸骨横截面出现骨缺损;1B.双线间断缝合胸骨7处;1C.在胸骨后留置引流管,缝线打结拉拢并固定胸骨;1D.术后12个月随访,切口愈合良好
The effect of antibacterial absorbable suture closure on the wound repair of a patient with small range of bone defect wounds due to deep sternal wound infection after median thoracotomy
图 2.

用于正中开胸术后因胸骨深部伤口感染致小范围骨缺损创面修复的抗菌可吸收缝线拉拢闭合术前及术后CT成像图。2A、2B.分别为术前和术后12个月的胸部CT三维重建图;2C、2D.分别为术前和术后12个月的胸部CT平面图,可见术前胸骨开裂伴有骨质缺损且骨密度低,术后胸骨已达解剖愈合
Preoperative and postoperative CT images of antibacterial absorbable suture closure for repairing small range of bone defect wounds due to deep sternal wound infection after median thoracotomy
3. 讨论
鉴于DSWI的较高发生率及致死率,其治疗手段越来越受到重视。尽管目前拥有修复DSWI的金标准术式——彻底清创后进行肌皮瓣覆盖,但金标准术式仍存在不足:(1)因胸骨的缺损,往往需要肌肉或软组织进行填充,此举不但阻碍了胸骨的解剖愈合,而且增加了对肌瓣供区的损伤。(2)单纯使用肌皮瓣修复胸壁一般不足以维持胸骨的稳定性,且术后常需行持续的抗凝治疗,因而骤然增加了术区出血和重新裂开的风险[6,20]。
迄今为止,多采用钢丝或钛合金支架固定胸骨以恢复胸骨的稳定性。然而,胸骨炎症的持续存在会导致骨质疏松骤然加剧[21]。此外,采用钢丝或钛合金支架固定胸骨后,胸骨极易再次出现撕裂或松动,最终导致手术失败。抗菌薇乔线因其抗拉力强,有抗菌成分且可被分解吸收,在临床上被广泛使用[22-23]。使用1-0抗菌薇乔线,予双线缝合6处或7处,不仅可降低每个缝合点的压强还可以将胸大肌一并拉拢缝合,更有利于维持胸骨稳定性,降低胸骨被撕裂的概率。
本研究提供了一种DSWI修复理念,即在胸骨横截面缺损宽度 < 1 cm的情况下,采用双线直接拉拢闭合胸骨。结果显示,该方法可取得预期效果,明显缩短了DSWI患者Ⅱ期创面修复术的时长及住院时间。有研究显示,大多数DSWI可以在早期被明确诊断[24]。本研究显示,通过早期确诊DSWI并加以手术干预可使胸骨横截面缺损限制在直径1 cm以内,为实施直接闭合术提供了可能。然而,胸骨横截面缺损后,直接拉拢必然造成胸廓缩小,可能影响心脏功能。本团队收集直接闭合组患者术前及术后1个月内的心脏B超中左心室射血分数值并比较其变化,结果显示两者无明显差异,提示针对宽度1 cm以内的胸骨缺损采用直接拉拢闭合后对心脏功能无明显影响(另文发表)。
对于采用肌瓣填塞术修复胸骨缺损的患者而言,该术式可产生一定的张力,有助于增加胸骨稳定性。然而,突发的咳嗽或胸肌收缩可能对肌肉切口造成不可逆的损伤,导致局部出血或开裂[11,25]。本研究行该术式的39例DSWI患者中,有一定比例的患者出现伤口出血或裂开。此外,使用肌肉填充胸骨缺损,终止了胸骨的连续性,从而阻碍了胸骨的解剖愈合。采用直接闭合术修复胸骨缺损,无须采用肌皮瓣进行易位填充,可以避免对供区的直接损伤,而且胸骨可对位拉拢固定,可最终达到解剖愈合。
本研究存在一定的局限性:样本量不够大、指标有限、非平行临床对照,因此需要进一步加大样本量以评价直接闭合术式的优越性。
总之,本研究证明采用直接闭合术式修复早期DSWI致宽度1 cm以内的胸骨缺损创面的方案是可行的,术中需注意进行彻底清创。该手术具有简单快捷,显著缩短手术时长及住院时间并实现胸骨解剖愈合的优势。
Funding Statement
广东省基础与应用基础研究区域联合基金重点项目(2020B1515120088);广州市科技基础与应用基础研究项目(202102080323)
Key Project of Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (2020B1515120088); Basic and Applied Research of Science and Technology Project of Guangzhou (202102080323)
本文亮点
(1) 证实抗菌可吸收缝线拉拢闭合术能在早期有效修复正中开胸术后因胸骨深部伤口感染致胸骨横截面缺损宽度 < 1 cm的创面。
(2) 该手术不需要额外肌瓣的填充,操作简单且用时短。
Highlights
(1) It was confirmed that the wound closure with antibacterial absorbable sutures could effectively repair sternal cross-sectional defects with width below 1 cm due to deep sternal wound infections after median thoracotomy in the early stage.
(2) The surgery did not require the additional filling of musculocutaneous flaps, and was simple to operate in short time.
利益冲突 所有作者均声明不存在利益冲突
作者贡献声明 李汉华:病历资料收集、数据统计、手术设计、手术操作、论文撰写;熊兵:手术设计、手术操作;刘族安、黄志锋:经费支持、手术操作;孙传伟、罗红敏、马亮华、卞徽宁、郑少逸:手术操作;赖文:手术操作、论文审阅与修改
References
- 1.官 浩, 陈 阳. 重视胸骨切开术后胸骨深部伤口感染的预防和处理. 中华烧伤与创面修复杂志. 2024;40(2):125–130. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501225-20231212-00235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Zukowska A, Zukowski M. Surgical site infection in cardiac surgery. J Clin Med. 2022;11(23):6991. doi: 10.3390/jcm11236991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Perezgrovas-Olaria R, Audisio K, Cancelli G, et al. Deep sternal wound infection and mortality in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023;115(1):272–280. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.04.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Finkelstein R, Rabino G, Mashiah T, et al. Surgical site infection rates following cardiac surgery: the impact of a 6-year infection control program. Am J Infect Control. 2005;33(8):450–454. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2005.07.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Olsen MA, Lock-Buckley P, Hopkins D, et al. The risk factors for deep and superficial chest surgical-site infections after coronary artery bypass graft surgery are different. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;124(1):136–145. doi: 10.1067/mtc.2002.122306. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Lu JC, Grayson AD, Jha P, et al. Risk factors for sternal wound infection and mid-term survival following coronary artery bypass surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003;23(6):943–949. doi: 10.1016/s1010-7940(03)00137-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Schimmer C, Reents W, Berneder S, et al. Prevention of sternal dehiscence and infection in high-risk patients: a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86(6):1897–1904. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.08.071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Singh K, Anderson E, Harper JG. Overview and management of sternal wound infection. Semin Plast Surg. 2011;25(1):25–33. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1275168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kaspersen AE, Nielsen SJ, Orrason AW, et al. Short- and long-term mortality after deep sternal wound infection following cardiac surgery: experiences from SWEDEHEART. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;60(2):233–241. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Samoukovic G, Bernier PL, Lachapelle K. Successful treatment of infected ascending aortic prosthesis by omental wrapping without graft removal. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86(1):287–289. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.01.086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.郑 少逸, 赖 文, 黄 志锋, et al. 双侧胸大肌肌瓣治疗开胸术后胸骨骨髓炎临床效果. 中华烧伤杂志. 2015;31(1):61–63. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2015.01.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Brown RH, Sharabi SE, Kania KE, et al. The split pectoralis flap: combining the benefits of pectoralis major advancement and turnover techniques in one flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(6):1474–1477. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000003328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Spartalis E, Markakis C, Moris D, et al. Results of the modified bi-pectoral muscle flap procedure for post-sternotomy deep wound infection. Surg Today. 2016;46(4):460–465. doi: 10.1007/s00595-015-1192-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kamel GN, Jacobson J, Rizzo AM, et al. Analysis of immediate versus delayed sternal reconstruction with pectoralis major advancement versus turnover muscle flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2019;35(8):602–608. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1688760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Bota O, Josten C, Borger MA, et al. Standardized musculocutaneous flap for the coverage of deep sternal wounds after cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107(3):802–808. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.09.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Davison SP, Clemens MW, Armstrong D, et al. Sternotomy wounds: rectus flap versus modified pectoral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(4):929–934. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000253443.09780.0f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Georgiou I, Ioannou CI, Schmidt J, et al. Free flaps in sternal osteomyelitis after median sternotomy: a center's 12-year experience. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2023;39(8):601–615. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1761208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Marzouk M, Baillot R, Kalavrouziotis D, et al. Early to midterm survival of patients with deep sternal wound infection managed with laparoscopically harvested omentum. J Card Surg. 2021;36(11):4083–4089. doi: 10.1111/jocs.15955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Lo Torto F, Turriziani G, Donato C, et al. Deep sternal wound infection following cardiac surgery: a comparison of the monolateral with the bilateral pectoralis major flaps. Int Wound J. 2020;17(3):683–691. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Epstein AE, Alexander JC, Gutterman DD, et al. Anticoagulation: American College of Chest Physicians guidelines for the prevention and management of postoperative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. Chest. 2005;128(2 Suppl):24S–27S. doi: 10.1378/chest.128.2_suppl.24s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Liò P, Paoletti N, Moni MA, et al. Modelling osteomyelitis. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;14:S12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-13-S14-S12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Gómez-Alonso A, García-Criado FJ, Parreño-Manchado FC, et al. Study of the efficacy of Coated VICRYL Plus Antibacterial suture (coated Polyglactin 910 suture with Triclosan) in two animal models of general surgery. J Infect. 2007;54(1):82–88. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2006.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Abiri A, Paydar O, Tao A, et al. Tensile strength and failure load of sutures for robotic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(8):3258–3270. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5356-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Grossi EA, Culliford AT, Krieger KH, et al. A survey of 77 major infectious complications of median sternotomy: a review of 7, 949 consecutive operative procedures. Ann Thorac Surg. 1985;40(3):214–223. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(10)60030-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.郑 少逸, 陈 华德, 孙 传伟, et al. 开胸术后胸部正中难愈性伤口的临床分级及治疗. 中国修复重建外科杂志. 2014;28(9):1120–1124. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.20140244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

