论文部分内容阅读
目的:通过对比分析中、美两国2种整形外科领域权威期刊的皮瓣类论著文献，寻找异同点，探讨将来的研究方向。方法:2021年5月，以“皮瓣”为关键词检索2016年1月至2020年12月《中华整形外科杂志》(n CJPS)和n Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery(n PRS)杂志发表的文题或摘要内含有相关关键词的论著类文献。通过万方数据知识服务平台及中国知网检索、获取n CJPS发表的相关文献，通过PubMed数据库及Scopus数据库检索获取n PRS杂志发表的相关文献。去除重复文献后，阅读文题及摘要，排除非皮瓣研究及非论著类文献。阅读全文并运用文献计量学方法，对总发文量、皮瓣研究发文量、循证医学证据级别、作者国籍及机构分布、皮瓣类型、皮瓣应用及新技术应用等方面进行综合分析。n 结果:CJPS近5年总发文量为1 166篇，244篇纳入研究；n PRS杂志近5年总发文量为4 562篇，268篇纳入研究。n PRS杂志作者以美国学者居多，中国学者发文总量位居第2位，近5年内中国内地作者共发文21篇。n CJPS发文以带蒂皮瓣研究居多，n PRS杂志则以游离皮瓣为主；n CJPS传统皮瓣发文量多于穿支皮瓣，n PRS杂志则与之相反；n CJPS发文以局部皮瓣、股前外侧皮瓣和腓动脉穿支皮瓣为主，而n PRS杂志以腹壁下动脉穿支皮瓣、腓骨骨瓣或骨皮瓣和股前外侧皮瓣等类型的皮瓣为主。n CJPS报道的皮瓣主要用于修复缺损，而n PRS杂志报道的皮瓣则主要用于乳房再造等领域。此外，两本杂志都报道了许多皮瓣外科领域的新技术和新方法，如计算机辅助成像、吲哚菁绿成像技术、螺旋桨皮瓣、分叶皮瓣等，已经得到了广泛应用。n 结论:近5年，我国的皮瓣研究整体处在国际领先水平，具有一定的国际竞争力。但我国的研究局限于报道临床经验，循证医学级别低，与国际前沿研究尚有一定的差距。“,”Objective:This paper briefly reviewed the literature related to skin flaps published in n Chinese Journal of Plastic Surgery (n CJPS) and n Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (n PRS) in recent five years (from January 2016 to December 2020) to compare the similarities and differences between these two journals and to direct future research.n Methods:In May of 2021, literature with “flap” as the keyword in the titles and abstracts published in n CJPS and n PRS in recent five years were searched. Related literature published by n CJPS were searched by Wanfang Data and CNKI database, and that of n PRS were searched by PubMed and Scopus database. After removing the repetitive literature, the titles and abstracts were read to exclude the non-flap studies and non-original articles. By reading the full text and using bibliometrics, the total number of papers published, the number of papers on flap research, the level of evidence-based medicine evidence, the nationality and organization distribution of the authors, the type of flaps, the application of flaps, and new technologies were comprehensively analyzed.n Results:The total number of papers published by n CJPS in recent five years was 1 116, and 244 were included in this study. The total number of articles published in n PRS in the same period was 4 562, and 268 were included in this study. Most of the articles published in n PRS are from American authors. The number of articles published by Chinese authors is in the second place. In the past five years, authors from the mainland of China published 21 papers in n PRS. Most of the articles published by n CJPS are about the pedicle flap, while n PRS is about the free flap. n CJPS published more articles about the traditional flaps than perforator flaps, and n PRS did the opposite. n CJPS published articles mainly on the local flap, anterolateral thigh flap, and peroneal artery perforator flap, while PRS focused on the inferior epigastric artery perforator fibula bone or osteocutaneous flap, and anterolateral thigh flap. The indication of flap surgery reported by n CJPS is the reconstruction of various defects, while the flaps reported by n PRS are mainly used in breast reconstruction and other fields. In addition, computer-aided imaging, indocyanine green angiography, propeller flap, multilobed flap, and other new technologies and concepts have been widely reported in the literature related to skin flaps published in n CPJS and n PRS.n Conclusions:In the recent five years, the flap research in China has been at the leading international level and has certain competitiveness. However, the study in China is limited to reporting clinical experience, and the level of evidence-based medicine is relatively low, so there is still a certain gap with the international frontier research.