Research Article

Comparison of Surgical Methods in Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Treatment

Volume: 5 Number: 3 September 20, 2021
EN

Comparison of Surgical Methods in Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Treatment

Abstract

Purpose: Although many conservative and surgical methods have been described in the treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus, which is a common disease of the sacrococcygeal region, affecting especially young men, recurrence rates are still high and the search for ideal treatment continues. The aim of the study is to compare the primary closure, Limberg and Karydakis flap methods for pilonidal sinus surgery in terms of wound healing, complications and recurrence and to present the results accordingly. Material and method: The data of 184 patients who were operated between 2018 and 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. Patient data on age, gender, comorbidity, Body Mass Index (BMI), smoking, recurrence, history of preoperative abscess drainage, surgical methods, length of hospital stay, postoperative drain, recurrence and complications were evaluated. Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the treatment methods in terms of age, gender, Body Mass Index, and smoking (p>0.005). A statistically significant difference was found between the treatment methods in terms of reoperation for recurrence and preoperative abscess drainage (p = 0.012) (p = 0.044). However, a significant difference was found between the treatment methods in terms of length of hospital stay, presence of drainage, recurrence and complications (p <0.005). Conclusion: Although primary suturation has a short hospital stay, the rate of recurrence and complications is higher than the Limberg and Karydakis flap methods. In this context, it can be maintained that the Limberg and Karydakis flap methods are safer methods than the primary closure method.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

yok

Project Number

yok

Thanks

.

References

  1. 1. Iesalnieks I, Ommer A, Petersen S, Doll D, Herold A. German national guideline on the management of pilonidal disease. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016; 401: 599-609.
  2. 2. Strong E, Callaghan T, Beal E, et al. Patient decision-making and regret in pilonidal sinus surgery: a mixed-methods study. Colorectal Disease. 2021; 00: 1–12.
  3. 3. Kallis MP, Maloney C, Lipskar AM. Management of pilonidal disease. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2018; 30: 411-416.
  4. 4. Johnson EK. Expert Commentary on Pilonidal Disease: Management and Definitive Treatment. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018; 61: 777-779.
  5. 5. Emile SH, Khan SM, Barsom SH, Wexner SD. Karydakis procedure versus Limberg flap for treatment of pilonidal sinus: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Colorectal Disease 2021 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-021-03922-w.
  6. 6. Çiftci F, Abdurrahman I. A different disease: extra sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinuses etiopathogenesis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8: 11567-11571.
  7. 7. Duman K, Gırgın M, Harlak A. Prevalence of sacrococcygeal pilonidal di-sease in Turkey. Asian J Surg. 2017; 40: 434-437.
  8. 8. Gordon KJ, Hunt TM. Osteomyelitis as a complication of a pilonidal sinus. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016; 31: 155-156.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

September 20, 2021

Submission Date

May 28, 2021

Acceptance Date

August 4, 2021

Published in Issue

Year 2021 Volume: 5 Number: 3

APA
Çantay, H., & Daşdemir, Y. (2021). Comparison of Surgical Methods in Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Treatment. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences, 5(3), 126-131. https://doi.org/10.30621/jbachs.944359
AMA
1.Çantay H, Daşdemir Y. Comparison of Surgical Methods in Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Treatment. JBACHS. 2021;5(3):126-131. doi:10.30621/jbachs.944359
Chicago
Çantay, Hasan, and Yavuz Daşdemir. 2021. “Comparison of Surgical Methods in Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Treatment”. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences 5 (3): 126-31. https://doi.org/10.30621/jbachs.944359.
EndNote
Çantay H, Daşdemir Y (September 1, 2021) Comparison of Surgical Methods in Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Treatment. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences 5 3 126–131.
IEEE
[1]H. Çantay and Y. Daşdemir, “Comparison of Surgical Methods in Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Treatment”, JBACHS, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 126–131, Sept. 2021, doi: 10.30621/jbachs.944359.
ISNAD
Çantay, Hasan - Daşdemir, Yavuz. “Comparison of Surgical Methods in Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Treatment”. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences 5/3 (September 1, 2021): 126-131. https://doi.org/10.30621/jbachs.944359.
JAMA
1.Çantay H, Daşdemir Y. Comparison of Surgical Methods in Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Treatment. JBACHS. 2021;5:126–131.
MLA
Çantay, Hasan, and Yavuz Daşdemir. “Comparison of Surgical Methods in Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Treatment”. Journal of Basic and Clinical Health Sciences, vol. 5, no. 3, Sept. 2021, pp. 126-31, doi:10.30621/jbachs.944359.
Vancouver
1.Hasan Çantay, Yavuz Daşdemir. Comparison of Surgical Methods in Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus Treatment. JBACHS. 2021 Sep. 1;5(3):126-31. doi:10.30621/jbachs.944359