Who is still using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene?
Who is still using expanded polytetrafluoroethylene?
复制标题
DOI：
10.2310/6350.2005.31249
复制
发表时间：
2005-11-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Cox, SE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cox, SE
背景。膨体聚四氟乙烯 (ePTFE) 是一种永久性固体植入物，已用于面部软组织增强。假体通常用于面部下三分之一处，以填充嘴唇、鼻唇沟和更深的面部线条。许多医生已经注意到这种用途的并发症。目的。确定医生对 ePTFE 的满意度趋势。方法。 2000 年 2 月发出了一项医生满意度调查。评估了患者和医生对使用 ePTFE 增强的首选部位、使用数量和翻修率的满意度信息。第二次调查于 2003 年 7 月邮寄给同一位医生，以获得有关 ePTFE 长期满意度的信息。结果。第一次调查的结果显示，12 名医生中有 10 名认为他们的患者对除嘴唇以外所有部位的 ePTFE 植入物感到满意。不同医生每年进行 ePTFE 治疗的病例数存在很大差异。据报道，嘴唇的修正率从低于 1% 到 100% 不等。大多数医生发现移除植入物很容易。 2003年的第二次调查结果显示，100%的医生对这些产品感到失望。医生对患者满意度的评估显示，三分之一的人有点失望，三分之二的人感到满意。第一次和第二次调查之间所有案例的修订率均有所增加。在这两个时间段内均未进行主观患者满意度调查。结论。新手术往往很快就会受到医生和患者的欢迎。我们重新评估并报告长期体验和满意度至关重要。尽管这项非正式调查有其局限性，但一些医生似乎对 ePTFE 作为软组织植入物不太满意。欢迎进行更大规模的研究，包括描绘改善程度的客观测量和主观患者满意度。
BACKGROUND. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) is a permanent, solid implant that has been used for facial soft tissue augmentation. The implants are generally used in the lower third of the face for filling lips, nasolabial folds, and deeper facial lines. Many physicians have noted complications with this use.OBJECTIVE. To determine physician satisfaction trends for ePTFE. METHODS. A physician satisfaction survey was sent out in February 2000. Information regarding perceived patient and physician satisfaction regarding favored sites for the use of augmentation with ePTFE, the quantity used, and revision rates was assessed. A second survey was mailed in July 2003 to the same physicians to gain information regarding long-term satisfaction with ePTFE.RESULTS. The results from the first survey revealed that 10 of 12 physicians perceived that their patients were satisfied with ePTFE implants in all locations with the exception of the lips. There was a wide variation in the number of cases of ePTFE performed per year among the different physicians. Reported revision rates varied from less than 1 to 100% in the lips. The majority of the physicians found that removal of the implant was easy. The results from the second survey in 2003 revealed that 100% of the physicians were disappointed with these products. Physicians' assessments of their patients' satisfaction revealed that one-third were mildly disappointed and two-thirds were satisfied. Revision rates in all cases were increased between the first and second survey. A subjective patient satisfaction survey was not done during either of these time periods.CONCLUSIONS. New procedures are often quickly embraced by both physicians and patients. It is crucial that we reevaluate and report long-term experience and satisfaction. Although this informal survey has limitations, it appears that some physicians are less satisfied with ePTFE as a soft tissue implant. Larger studies including objective measurements delineating the degree of improvement and subjective patient satisfaction would be welcomed.