Literature DB >> 26138521

Comparison of modified Limberg flap transposition and lateral advancement flap transposition with Burow's triangle in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease.

Mehmet Saydam1, Bulent Ozturk2, Huseyin Sinan2, Ahmet Z Balta3, Pervin Demir4, Mustafa T Ozer5, Sezai Demirbas5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although many options exist for surgical treatment of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD), consensus has not yet been achieved, as all surgical methods have various rates of complications, postoperative infection, and recurrence.
METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized, clinical trial, and was conducted with consecutive 100 patients admitted to Ankara Military Hospital General Surgery Service for treatment of PSD from May 2013 to August 2013. This study compared two surgical treatments for PSD: modified Limberg flap transposition and lateral advancement flap transposition with Burow's triangle. The patients received surgical treatment with either modified Limberg flap transposition (n = 50) or lateral advancement flap transposition with Burow's triangle (n = 50). Clinical healing period, length of hospital stay, operative time, postoperative complications including recurrence, wound dehiscence, and surgical site infection, as noted during postoperative follow-up period; Visual Analog Scale scores for pain.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 12 months. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in length of hospital stay (P = .515), operative time (P = .175), wound dehiscence (P = .645), and Visual Analog Scale pain scores (P = .112). The mean operative times were 42.5 minutes in the modified Limberg group and 40.0 minutes in the lateral advancement group.
CONCLUSIONS: Although lateral advancement flap transposition with Burow's triangle is used less often than modified Limberg flap transposition, we could not determine a parameter that was statistically different such as operative time, postoperative complication, or the length of hospital stay. Hence, the lateral advancement flap is as viable an option as other more preferable techniques in the treatment of PSD, which particularly settled on the upper segment without a deep natal cleft.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Burow; Lateral advancement; Modified Limberg; Pilonidal sinus disease; Surgical treatment

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26138521     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.03.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  6 in total

1.  A New Oval Advancement Flap Design for Reconstruction of Pilonidal Sinus Defect.

Authors:  Enver Arpaci; Serdar Altun; Erkan Orhan; Atilla Eyuboglu; Nilgun Markal Ertas
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  Common surgical procedures in pilonidal sinus disease: A meta-analysis, merged data analysis, and comprehensive study on recurrence.

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

3.  Impact of geography and surgical approach on recurrence in global pilonidal sinus disease.

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

4.  Combined Horizontal Split Gluteus Maximus Muscle and Fasciocutaneous Limberg Flaps for Reconstruction of Recurrent Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus.

Authors:  Mahfouz S I Ahmad; Hazem Eltayeb
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2020-12-18

5.  Comparison between primary closure with Limberg Flap versus open procedure in treatment of pilonidal sinus, in terms of frequency of post-operative wound infection.

Authors:  Muhammad Sohail Jabbar; Mahwish Mahboob Bhutta; Nayyab Puri
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.088

6.  Surgical procedures in the pilonidal sinus disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Siwei Bi; Kaibo Sun; Shanshan Chen; Jun Gu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-08-13       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.