J M Enriquez-Navascues1, J I Emparanza, M Alkorta, C Placer. 1. Servicio de Cirugía General y Digestiva, Hospital Universitario Donostia, Universidad del Pais Vasco-Euskal Herria Unibersitatea, Pº Dr Beguiristain s/n, 20014, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain, josemaria.enriqueznavascues@osakidetza.net.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are different open healing and primary closure approaches for chronic pilonidal sinus (CPD) that differ in principles and extension. AIMS: To compare the results of different closure surgical techniques, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing: (1) open wide excision versus open limited excision (sinusectomy) or unroofing (sinotomy); (2) midline closure (conventional and tension-free) versus off-midline; (3) advancing versus rotation flaps; and (4) sinusectomy/sinotomy versus primary closure. METHODS: Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by the authors using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Data were pooled using fixed and random-effects models. Primary outcomes were rate of healing, recurrence, wound infection and dehiscence. Twenty-five trials (2,949 patients) were included. RESULTS: Four trials compared limited versus radical open healing. Although recurrence rate did not differ, all other outcomes favored the limited approach. Ten studies compared midline versus off-midline primary closure; wound infection and dehiscence were significantly higher after midline closure. Six RCT compared Karydakis/Bascom versus Limberg. No difference was found in recurrence or wound complications rate. Six RCT compared sinusectomy/sinotomy versus primary closure. Recurrence rate was significantly lower after sinusectomy/sinotomy; no significant differences were found in other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggest that some of the questions of which is the best surgical technique for CPD have now been answered: open radical excision and primary midline closure should be abandoned. Sinusotomy/sinectomy or en bloc resection with off midline primary closure are the preferred approaches.
BACKGROUND: There are different open healing and primary closure approaches for chronic pilonidal sinus (CPD) that differ in principles and extension. AIMS: To compare the results of different closure surgical techniques, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing: (1) open wide excision versus open limited excision (sinusectomy) or unroofing (sinotomy); (2) midline closure (conventional and tension-free) versus off-midline; (3) advancing versus rotation flaps; and (4) sinusectomy/sinotomy versus primary closure. METHODS: Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by the authors using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Data were pooled using fixed and random-effects models. Primary outcomes were rate of healing, recurrence, wound infection and dehiscence. Twenty-five trials (2,949 patients) were included. RESULTS: Four trials compared limited versus radical open healing. Although recurrence rate did not differ, all other outcomes favored the limited approach. Ten studies compared midline versus off-midline primary closure; wound infection and dehiscence were significantly higher after midline closure. Six RCT compared Karydakis/Bascom versus Limberg. No difference was found in recurrence or wound complications rate. Six RCT compared sinusectomy/sinotomy versus primary closure. Recurrence rate was significantly lower after sinusectomy/sinotomy; no significant differences were found in other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggest that some of the questions of which is the best surgical technique for CPD have now been answered: open radical excision and primary midline closure should be abandoned. Sinusotomy/sinectomy or en bloc resection with off midline primary closure are the preferred approaches.
Authors: Christopher Soll; Daniel Dindo; Daniel Steinemann; Till Hauffe; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Dieter Hahnloser Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-09-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Mehmet Fatih Can; Mert Mahsuni Sevinc; Oguz Hancerliogullari; Mehmet Yilmaz; Gokhan Yagci Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2010-02-01 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: M Milone; M N D Di Minno; M Musella; P Maietta; P Ambrosino; A Pisapia; G Salvatore; F Milone Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Marco Milone; Nunzio Velotti; Michele Manigrasso; Francesco Milone; Loredana Maria Sosa Fernandez; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: Updates Surg Date: 2018-12-12
Authors: Sotirios Georgios Popeskou; Barbara Pravini; Sofoklis Panteleimonitis; Antoniacopo Ferrario Di Tor Vajana; Alice Vanoni; Mike Schmalzbauer; Alberto Posabella; Dimitri Christoforidis Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 2.571