A comparative analysis of four different surgical methods for treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus

dc.contributor.author Ekici, Ugur
dc.contributor.author Kanlioz, Murat
dc.contributor.author Ferhatoglu, Murat Ferhat
dc.contributor.author Kartal, Abdulcabbar
dc.date.accessioned 2024-05-25T11:39:58Z
dc.date.available 2024-05-25T11:39:58Z
dc.date.issued 2019
dc.description Kartal, Abdulcabbar/0000-0001-7536-3146; Kanlioz, Murat/0000-0003-4271-184X en_US
dc.description.abstract Objectives: Although many surgical methods have been described for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus treatment, the best option is still controversial. We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of these different methods in terms of advantages and disadvantages. Methods: The records of 320 patients undergone surgery for primary or recurrent pilonidal sinus between May 2013 and May 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Demographical data, preoperative stories, wound site infection, seroma development, wound dehiscence, time of healing, duration of return to work, and if there is any recurrence of 303 patients included in the study were recorded. Upon wide local excision, the first surgeon performed marsupialisation and the lay open technique, second surgeon performed vertical excision and primary closure, third surgeon performed Limberg flap transposition and fourth surgeon performed Karydakis' flap transposition. Results: There was no significant difference between the patients in terms of demographical characteristics. The duration of surgery was statistically significantly higher in primary closure method (p = 0.001). The mean duration of return-to-work was statistically significantly lower in primary closure method (p = 0.002). In primary closure method, the recurrence rate was found to be statistically significantly higher than the other methods (p = 0.009). Conclusion: We do not suggest the use of primary closure method in treatment of pilonidal sinus. Because of lower rates of recurrence and shorter durations of return to work, the Karydakis and Limberg methods are seen as safer methods when compared to lay-open and marsupialization method. (C) 2019 Asian Surgical Association and Taiwan Robotic Surgery Association. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. en_US
dc.identifier.citationcount 15
dc.identifier.doi 10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.12.011
dc.identifier.issn 1015-9584
dc.identifier.issn 0219-3108
dc.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-85060297014
dc.identifier.uri https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.12.011
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/1383
dc.language.iso en
dc.publisher Elsevier Singapore Pte Ltd en_US
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess en_US
dc.subject Pilonidal sinus en_US
dc.subject Limberg flap en_US
dc.subject Karydakis flap en_US
dc.subject Primary closure en_US
dc.subject Marsupialization and lay-open en_US
dc.title A comparative analysis of four different surgical methods for treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dspace.entity.type Publication
gdc.author.id Kartal, Abdulcabbar/0000-0001-7536-3146
gdc.author.id Kanlioz, Murat/0000-0003-4271-184X
gdc.author.scopusid 57196279239
gdc.author.scopusid 6507296290
gdc.author.scopusid 57205505728
gdc.author.scopusid 35798520900
gdc.author.wosid Kartal, Abdulcabbar/Y-3416-2019
gdc.coar.access open access
gdc.coar.type text::journal::journal article
gdc.description.department Okan University en_US
gdc.description.departmenttemp [Ekici, Ugur] Istanbul Gelisim Univ, Hlth Sci Coll, Hlth Adm Dept, J Kom Er Hakan Oner Sokak 1, TR-34310 Istanbul, Turkey; [Kanlioz, Murat] Lokman Hekim Univ Hosp, Gen Surg Dept, Ankara, Turkey; [Ferhatoglu, Murat Ferhat; Kartal, Abdulcabbar] Okan Univ, Gen Surg Dept, Istanbul, Turkey en_US
gdc.description.endpage 913 en_US
gdc.description.issue 10 en_US
gdc.description.publicationcategory Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı en_US
gdc.description.scopusquality Q1
gdc.description.startpage 907 en_US
gdc.description.volume 42 en_US
gdc.description.wosquality Q1
gdc.identifier.pmid 30685149
gdc.identifier.wos WOS:000492687800002
gdc.index.type WoS
gdc.index.type Scopus
gdc.index.type PubMed
gdc.scopus.citedcount 20
gdc.wos.citedcount 17

Files