Cerrah Yaşı ve Deneyiminin Pilonidal Sinüs Operasyon Tekniği ile İlişkisi

Öz

Objective: Most surgeons continue to use classical methods of surgical treatment despite the introduction of minimally invasive approaches. This study aimed to evaluate the association of surgeon age and experience on Pilonidal sinus (PS) treatment method. Methodology: Clinical data of patients who presented with PS and underwent surgical treatment between January 2011 and November 2021 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Operation method was classified as classical or minimally invasive. Surgeons were divided into three age groups: 28–35 years, 36–45 years, and ≥46 years. Drain use, anesthesia type, and operation method were compared between age groups. Correlation of surgeon age and these variables was also evaluated. Results: In total, 253 patients were included for analysis (203 men and 50 women). Median age was 25 years (range, 16–64). The number of patients in the classical and minimally invasive groups was 155 and 98 patients, respectively. Use of minimally invasive surgery increased (r = 0.153) and drain use decreased (r = −0.232) as surgeon age and experience increased. Spinal anesthesia was the most frequently used anesthesia method; only 7.1% of patients underwent surgery using local anesthesia. There was no significant correlation between surgeon age and anesthesia type. Conclusion: Classical surgical treatment of PS remains more common than minimally invasive approaches in our hospital. Use of minimally invasive approaches increased in conjunction with surgeon age and experience.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pilonidal sinüs
• minimal invaziv yaklaşım
• lazer ablasyon

Association of Surgeon Age and Experience with Pilonidal Sinus Operation Technique

Öz

Objective: Most surgeons continue to use classical methods of surgical treatment despite the introduction of minimally invasive approaches. This study aimed to evaluate the association of surgeon age and experience on Pilonidal sinus (PS) treatment method. Methodology: Clinical data of patients who presented with PS and underwent surgical treatment between January 2011 and November 2021 in our hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Operation method was classified as classical or minimally invasive. Surgeons were divided into three age groups: 28–35 years, 36–45 years, and ≥46 years. Drain use, anesthesia type, and operation method were compared between age groups. Correlation of surgeon age and these variables was also evaluated. Results: In total, 253 patients were included for analysis (203 men and 50 women). Median age was 25 years (range, 16–64). The number of patients in the classical and minimally invasive groups was 155 and 98 patients, respectively. Use of minimally invasive surgery increased (r = 0.153) and drain use decreased (r = −0.232) as surgeon age and experience increased. Spinal anesthesia was the most frequently used anesthesia method; only 7.1% of patients underwent surgery using local anesthesia. There was no significant correlation between surgeon age and anesthesia type. Conclusion: Classical surgical treatment of PS remains more common than minimally invasive approaches in our hospital. Use of minimally invasive approaches increased in conjunction with surgeon age and experience.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• pilonidal sinus
• minimally invasive approach
• laser ablation

Kaynakça

1. 1. Barrial MA, Vilanova-Sánchez A, Gortázar S, et al. Pilonidal sinus in pediatric age: primary vs. secondary closure. Cir Pediatr. 2020;33:61-4.
2. 2. Johnson EK, Vogel JD, Cowan ML, et al. Clinical practice guidelines Committee of the american Society of Colon and rectal Surgeons _ the american Society of Colon and rectal Surgeons ' Clinical practice guidelines for the Management of Pilonidal disease. External colon rectum. 2019;62:146 -57.
3. 3. Mahmood F, Hussain A, Akingboye A. Pilonidal sinus disease : Review of current practice and prospects for endoscopic treatment . Ann Med Surg ( London ). 2020;57: 212-7.
4. 4. Allen-Mersh TG. Pilonidal sinus: finding the right track for treatment. BrJ Surg. 1990;77:123-32.
5. 5. Wells K, Pendola M. Pilonidal disease and perianal hydradenitis. Yeo cJ (Ed). Shackelford's surgery of alimentary tract ,8th ed. Philadelphia Elsevier; 2019: p.1793.
6. 6. Anderson, RE. Less invasive pilonidal sinus surgical procedures. Coloproctology. 2019;41:117-20.
7. 7. Iesalnieks I, Ommer A: The management of pilonidal sinus. Dtsch Arztebl int 2019; 116:12-21.
8. 8. Bi S, Sun K, Chen S, Gu J. Surgical procedures in the pilonidal sinus disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2020;10:13720.

9. 9. McCallum IJ, King PM, Bruce J. Healing by primary closure versus open healing after surgery for pilonidal sinus: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008;336:868-71.
10. 10. Bascom J. Pilonidal disease, Origin from follicles of hair and results of follicleremoval as treatment. Surgery 1980;87:567-72.
11. 11. Garg P, Garg M, Gupta V, Mehta SK, Lakhtaria P. Lay open ( deroofing ) and curettage under local anesthesia for pilonidal disease: an outpatient procedure. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2015;7:214–8.
12. 12. Iesalnieks I, Ommer A, Petersen S, et al. German national guideline on the management of pilonidal disease . Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016;401:599-609.
13. 13. Abdelnaby M, Fathy M, Emile SH, et al. Sinus laser therapy versus sinus lay open in the management of sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease. Colorectal dis. 2021;23:2456-65.
14. 14. Çolak T, Sücüllü İ, Sinan H, et al. Results of Surgeon Attitude Questionnaire in Pilonidal Disease. Journal of Disease of the Colon Rectum. 2011; 21:165 -272.
15. 15. Fabricius R, Petersen LW, Bertelsen CA. Treatment of pilonidal sinuses in Denmark is not optimal . Dan Med bull . 2010;57:4200.