S A Käser1, R Zengaffinen, M Uhlmann, C Glaser, C A Maurer. 1. Department of General, Visceral, Vascular, and Thoracic Surgery, Hospital of Baselland, affiliated to the University of Basel, Rheinstrasse 26, 4410, Liestal, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Off-midline procedures seem to be the best method of primary wound closure after excision of a pilonidal sinus. Primary wound closure with a Limberg flap was compared to secondary wound healing. METHODS:From January 2006 to July 2012, 102 patients with given informed consent (mean age 28 years, men 81%) who had excision of a pilonidal sinus in three hospitals in Switzerland were randomised to group L (Limberg flap, n = 51) or to group E (excision only, n = 51). Primary endpoint was duration of incapacity for work. Follow-up was at 3 weeks and at 1 year postoperative (95% follow-up). RESULTS: Both groups were comparable with regard to patient characteristics. The median (range) operation time was 60 (30-80) min in group L vs. 30 (10-75) min in group E (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in postoperative pain and painkiller intake; pain, percentage of patients at work and overall satisfaction at 3 weeks postoperative; and overall duration of incapacity for work and overall satisfaction at 1-year follow-up. The complication rate was 49% in group L vs. 12% in group E (p < 0.001). Complications in group L were seroma (6%), wound dehiscence (45%), skin necrosis (10%), hematoma (6%), infection (4%) and recurrent disease (13%). Complications in group E were recurrent disease (6%) and wound healing disorder (6%). CONCLUSIONS: After excision of a pilonidal sinus, primary wound closure with a Limberg flap has no advantage over secondary wound healing. The main reason for this conclusion is the relatively high complication rate of primary wound closure with a Limberg flap.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Off-midline procedures seem to be the best method of primary wound closure after excision of a pilonidal sinus. Primary wound closure with a Limberg flap was compared to secondary wound healing. METHODS: From January 2006 to July 2012, 102 patients with given informed consent (mean age 28 years, men 81%) who had excision of a pilonidal sinus in three hospitals in Switzerland were randomised to group L (Limberg flap, n = 51) or to group E (excision only, n = 51). Primary endpoint was duration of incapacity for work. Follow-up was at 3 weeks and at 1 year postoperative (95% follow-up). RESULTS: Both groups were comparable with regard to patient characteristics. The median (range) operation time was 60 (30-80) min in group L vs. 30 (10-75) min in group E (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in postoperative pain and painkiller intake; pain, percentage of patients at work and overall satisfaction at 3 weeks postoperative; and overall duration of incapacity for work and overall satisfaction at 1-year follow-up. The complication rate was 49% in group L vs. 12% in group E (p < 0.001). Complications in group L were seroma (6%), wound dehiscence (45%), skin necrosis (10%), hematoma (6%), infection (4%) and recurrent disease (13%). Complications in group E were recurrent disease (6%) and wound healing disorder (6%). CONCLUSIONS: After excision of a pilonidal sinus, primary wound closure with a Limberg flap has no advantage over secondary wound healing. The main reason for this conclusion is the relatively high complication rate of primary wound closure with a Limberg flap.
Authors: Heidi Sievert; Theo Evers; Edouard Matevossian; Christian Hoenemann; Sebastian Hoffmann; Dietrich Doll Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 2.571
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: V K Stauffer; M M Luedi; P Kauf; M Schmid; M Diekmann; K Wieferich; B Schnüriger; D Doll Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Dietrich Doll; Andriu Orlik; Katharina Maier; Peter Kauf; Marco Schmid; Maja Diekmann; Andreas P Vogt; Verena K Stauffer; Markus M Luedi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Kenan Çetin; Hasan Ediz Sikar; Aytaç Emre Kocaoğlu; Muhammet Fikri Kündeş; Mehmet Karahan; Levent Kaptanoğlu Journal: Ann Surg Treat Res Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 1.859