Is Adipopfascial Flap Superior to Limberg Flap in Surgical Treatment of Pilonidal Sinus? A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study

Öz

Background: Pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) encompasses inflammation localized to the intergluteal cleft, ranging from minor cyst to extensive sinus formation. The most important parameters in the treatment of the disease are early return to work, low recurrence rate, low postoperative pain, high comfort, low complication rate, and low cost. In the surgical treatment of pilonidal sinus disea-se, there are methods such as flap methods, primary closure, and unroofing and curettage. Materials and Methods: This study was planned as a prospective randomized clinical trial with pati-ents who were operated with the diagnosis of chronic pilonidal sinus. A total of 104 chronic piloni-dal sinus patients were randomized into two groups. The first group underwent Limberg flap proce-dure for treatment. The second group underwent adipofascial flap procedure for treatment. The two groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, duration of surgery, early and late complications, recurrence, and follow-up time. Results: The operation time was shorter in Group 2 than in Group 1. The difference was statistically significant. Wound dehiscence was significantly less common in Group 2. The aesthetic satisfaction was significantly higher in Group 2. Recurrence rates were not different between the Limberg and adipofascial groups (49/4 and 55/4, 8% and 7%, respectively). Conclusions: Our study showed that the adipofascial flap can be easily applied in the surgical treat-ment of pilonidal sinus disease and has no difference from other flap methods. To minimize regret for surgical decisions, people with PSD need better information on the burden of wound care and the risks of recurrence associated with different surgical approaches.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pilonidal sinus disease
• Limberg flap
• adipofascial flap

Pilonidal Sinüs Cerrahi Tedavisinde Adipofasyal Flep Tekniği Limberg Flep Tekniğine Üstün müdür? Randomize Prospektif Çalışma

Öz

Amaç: Pilonidal sinüs hastalığı (PSD), minör kistten geniş sinüs oluşumuna kadar değişen, intergluteal yarıkta lokalize inflamasyonu kapsar. Hastalığın tedavisinde en önemli parametreler işe erken dönüş, düşük nüks oranı, düşük postoperatif ağrı, yüksek konfor, düşük komplikasyon oranı ve düşük maliyettir. . Kıl dönmesi hastalığının cerrahi tedavisinde flep yöntemleri, primer kapatma ve unroofing, küretaj gibi yöntemler bulunmaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma kronik pilonidal sinüs tanısıyla opere edilen hastalarla prospektif randomize klinik çalışma olarak planlandı. Toplam 104 kronik pilonidal sinüs hastası iki gruba randomize edildi. Birinci gruba tedavi amaçlı Limberg flep işlemi uygulandı. İkinci gruba tedavi amaçlı adipofasyal flep işlemi uygulandı. İki grup demografik özellikler, ameliyat süresi, erken ve geç komplikasyonlar, nüks ve takip süresi açısından karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Operasyon süresi Grup 2'de Grup 1'e göre daha kısaydı. Aradaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı. Yara açılması Grup 2'de anlamlı olarak daha az görüldü. Estetik memnuniyet Grup 2'de anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti. Limberg ve adipofasyal gruplar arasında nüks oranlarında fark yoktu (sırasıyla 49/4 ve 55/4, %8 ve %7) Sonuç:Çalışmamız pilonidal sinüs hastalığının cerrahi tedavisinde rahatlıkla uygulanabilen ve diğer flep yöntemlerinden hiçbir farkının bulunmadığı adipofasyal flebin önemini göstermiştir. Cerrahi kararlarla ilgili pişmanlığı en aza indirmek için, PSD'li kişilerin yara bakımının yükü ve farklı cerrahi yaklaşımlarla ilişkili nüks riskleri hakkında daha iyi bilgiye ihtiyaçları vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• limberg flep
• adipofasyal flep
• pilonidal sinüs hastalığı

Kaynakça

1. 1. Lee PJ, Raniga S, Biyani DK, Watson AJ, Faragher IG, Frizelle FA. Sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease. Colorectal Dis. 2008;10(7):639-50.
2. 2. Kanat BH, Sözen S. Disease that should be remembered: Sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease and short history. World J Clin Cases. 2015;3(10):876-9.
3. 3. Von LM, Stadie V, Ulrich J, Wolfgang CM, Johannes W. Morphology of pilonidal sinus disease: some evidence of its being a unilocalized type of hidradenitis suppurativa. Dermatology. 2011;223(4):349-55.
4. 4. Armstrong JH, Barcia PJ. Pilonidal sinus disease: the conservative approach. Arch Surg. 1994;129(9):914-8.
5. 5. McCaughan D, Sheard L, Cullum N, Dumville J, Chetter I. Nurse’s and surgeon’s views and experiences of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention: a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29(13-14):2557-71.
6. 6. Petersen S, Koch R, Stelzner S, Wendlandt TP, Ludwig K. Primary closure techniques in chronic pilonidal sinus: a survey of the results of different surgical approaches. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45(11):1458-67.
7. 7. Søndenaa K, Andersen E, Nesvik I, Søreide JA. Patient characteristics and symptoms in chronic pilonidal sinus disease. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1995;10(1):39-42.
8. 8. Al-Qattan MM. De-epithelialized cross-finger flaps versus adipofascial turnover flaps for the reconstruction of small complex dorsal digital defects: a comparative analysis. J Hand Surg Am. 2005;30(3):549-57.

9. 9. Keighley MR. Pilonidal sinus in: Keighley MRB, Williams NS eds. Surgery of the Anus, Rectum & Colon. Second ed. London: WB Saunders Company, 1999;539-63.
10. 10. Boshnaq M, Phan YC, Martini I, Harilingam M, Akhtar M, Tsavellas G. Limberg flap in management of pilonidal si-nus disease: systematic review and a local. Acta Chir Belg. 2018;118(2):78-84.
11. 11. Søndenaa K, Nesvik I, Andersen E, Søreide JA. Recurrent pilonidal sinus after excision with closed or open treat-ment: final result of a randomized trial. Eur J Surg. 1996;(162):237-40.
12. 12. Vartanian E, Daniel JG, Lee SW, Patel K. Pilonidal disease: classic and contemporary concepts for surgical manage-ment. Ann Plast Surg. 2018;81(6):e12-e19.
13. 13. Harries RL, Alqallaf A, Torkington J, Harding KG. Mana-gement of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease. Int Wo-und J. 2019;16(2):370-8.
14. 14. Cameron JL. Current Surgical Therapy. Sixth ed. Philadelp-hia: Mosby, 2001;298-303.
15. 15. Blumberg NA. Pilonidal sinus treated with phenol: an old problem revisited. Surg Raunds. 2001;(24):307–16.
16. 16. Can MF, Sevinc MM, Hancerliogullari O, Yılmaz M, Yağci G. Multicentre prospective randomized trial comparing modified Limberg flap transposition and Karydakis flap reconstruction in patients with sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease. Am J Surg. 2010;(200):318-27.
17. 17. Bessa SS. Comparison of short-term results between the modified Karydakis flap and the modified Limberg flap in the management of pilonidal sinus disease: a randomised controlled trial. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(4):491-8.
18. 18. Arslan K, Kokcam S, Koksal H, Turan E, Atay A, Dogru O. Which flap method should be preferred for the treatment of pilonidal sinus? A prospective randomized study. Tech Coloproctol. 2014;(18):29-37.
19. 19. Hull TL, Wu J. Pilonidal disease. Surg Clin North Am. 2002;82(6):1169-85.
20. 20. Erdem E. Sungurtekin U, Nessar M. Are postoperative drains neccessary with the Limberg flep for treatment of pilonidal sinus? Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41(11):1427–31.
21. 21. Cihan A, Mentes BB, Tatlicioglu E, Ozmen S, Leventoglu S, Ucan BH. Modified Limberg flep reconstruction compares favourably with primary repair for pilonidal sinus surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74(4):238–42.
22. 22. Gavriilidis P, Bota E. Limberg flap versus Karydakis flap for treating pilonidal sinus disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Surg. 2019;62(2):131-8.
23. 23. Ersavaş C, Erginel B, Yanar F, Azamat İF, Taşkesen F, Soysal FG. Endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSIT) versus sinus laser therapy (SiLaT) for sacrococcygeal pi-lonidal sinus. Wideochir Inne Tech. 2023;18(1):144-8.
24. 24. Tien T, Athem R, Arulampalam T. Outcomes of endosco-pic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSiT): a systematic review. Tech Coloproctol. 2018;22(5):325-31.
25. 25. Romic I, Augustin G, Bogdanic B, Bruketa T, Moric T. Laser treatment of pilonidal desease: a systematic re-view. Lasers Med Sci. 2022;37(2):723-32.