Research Article

Retrospective Comparison of Matricectomy and Electrocauterization in the Treatment of Ingrown Toenail

Volume: 10 Number: 2 June 15, 2020
EN TR

Retrospective Comparison of Matricectomy and Electrocauterization in the Treatment of Ingrown Toenail

Abstract

Objective: Although ingrown toenails are a common health problem, there is no consensus about a standard first-choice treatment. Different non-surgical and surgical interventions for ingrown toenails are available. Our aim was to compare two surgical treatment methods for ingrown toenails; matricectomy with electrocauterization (ME) and surgical matricectomy (SM). Materials and Methods: A total of 111 patients with ingrown toenail were randomized into two groups: surgical matricectomy and matricectomy with electrocauterization. All cases were evaluated 1 day, 1 week, 3 and 6 months after treatment. Recurrence rates, visual analog scale (VAS) scores were compared. Results: Postoperative 1st day mean VAS score in ME group was higher than SM group (1.94 vs 0.93), but there was no difference in 8th day VAS scores. The mean recurrence rate was higher in ME group compared to SM group (33.9% vs 1.7%). Conclusions: SM is more effective method compared to ME method in terms of postoperative pain and recurrence in the treatment of ingrown toenail.

Keywords

References

  1. 1. Barreiros H, Matos D, Goula~o J, Serrano P, Joa~o A, Branda~o FM. Using 80% tri- chloroacetic acid in the treatment of ingrown toenails. An Bras Dermatol 88:889– 893, 2013.
  2. 2. Heidelbaugh JJ, Lee H. Management of the ingrown toenail. Am Fam Physician 79:303–308, 2009.
  3. 3. Karaca N, Dereli T. Treatment of ingrown toenail with proximolateral matrix partial excision and matrix phenolization. Ann Fam Med 10:556–559, 2012.
  4. 4. Korkmaz M, Co€lgec ̧ en E, Erdog!an Y, Bal A, Ozyurt K. Teenage patients with ingrown toenails: treatment with partial matrix excision or segmental phenolization. In- dian J Dermatol 58:327, 2013.
  5. 5. Richardson EG, Hendrix CL. Disorders of nail and skin. In: Canale ST, editors. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics. Philadelphia : Mosby; 2003. p. 4171-87.
  6. 6. Foulston J. Ingrown toe nail. In : Helal B, Wilson D, editors. The foot. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1988. p. 858-867.
  7. 7. Bostancı S, Ekmekçi P, Gürgey E. Chemical matricectomy with phenol for the treatment of ingrown toenail: A review of the literature and follow- up of 172 treated patients. Acta Derm Venereol 2001; 81:181-3.
  8. 8. Laco JE. Nail Surgery. In : Vincent J Hetherington, editors. Textbook of hallux valgus and forefoot surgery. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2000 p. 481-497.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

June 15, 2020

Submission Date

March 18, 2020

Acceptance Date

June 2, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 2020 Volume: 10 Number: 2

APA
Okuducu, M., & Mantoğlu, B. (2020). Retrospective Comparison of Matricectomy and Electrocauterization in the Treatment of Ingrown Toenail. Sakarya Medical Journal, 10(2), 285-290. https://doi.org/10.31832/smj.705982
AMA
1.Okuducu M, Mantoğlu B. Retrospective Comparison of Matricectomy and Electrocauterization in the Treatment of Ingrown Toenail. Sakarya Medical Journal. 2020;10(2):285-290. doi:10.31832/smj.705982
Chicago
Okuducu, Mehmet, and Barış Mantoğlu. 2020. “Retrospective Comparison of Matricectomy and Electrocauterization in the Treatment of Ingrown Toenail”. Sakarya Medical Journal 10 (2): 285-90. https://doi.org/10.31832/smj.705982.
EndNote
Okuducu M, Mantoğlu B (June 1, 2020) Retrospective Comparison of Matricectomy and Electrocauterization in the Treatment of Ingrown Toenail. Sakarya Medical Journal 10 2 285–290.
IEEE
[1]M. Okuducu and B. Mantoğlu, “Retrospective Comparison of Matricectomy and Electrocauterization in the Treatment of Ingrown Toenail”, Sakarya Medical Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 285–290, June 2020, doi: 10.31832/smj.705982.
ISNAD
Okuducu, Mehmet - Mantoğlu, Barış. “Retrospective Comparison of Matricectomy and Electrocauterization in the Treatment of Ingrown Toenail”. Sakarya Medical Journal 10/2 (June 1, 2020): 285-290. https://doi.org/10.31832/smj.705982.
JAMA
1.Okuducu M, Mantoğlu B. Retrospective Comparison of Matricectomy and Electrocauterization in the Treatment of Ingrown Toenail. Sakarya Medical Journal. 2020;10:285–290.
MLA
Okuducu, Mehmet, and Barış Mantoğlu. “Retrospective Comparison of Matricectomy and Electrocauterization in the Treatment of Ingrown Toenail”. Sakarya Medical Journal, vol. 10, no. 2, June 2020, pp. 285-90, doi:10.31832/smj.705982.
Vancouver
1.Mehmet Okuducu, Barış Mantoğlu. Retrospective Comparison of Matricectomy and Electrocauterization in the Treatment of Ingrown Toenail. Sakarya Medical Journal. 2020 Jun. 1;10(2):285-90. doi:10.31832/smj.705982

INDEXING & ABSTRACTING & ARCHIVING


  29985  30950  30951 30954 34273


30703 The published articles in SMJ are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.