M Kumar1, W H Clay2, M J Lee3,4, S R Brown2, D Hind5. 1. The Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 2. Academic Directorate of General Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK. 3. Academic Directorate of General Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK. M.j.lee@sheffield.ac.uk. 4. Department of Oncology and Metabolism, FU32, F Floor, Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2RX, UK. M.j.lee@sheffield.ac.uk. 5. Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pilonidal sinus is a hole in the natal cleft which may cause severe pain and become infected. The evidence base for management of pilonidal sinus is said to be poor quality, poorly focused and rapidly proliferating. We undertook a systematic mapping review to provide a broad overview of the field and support the identification of research priorities. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE from inception to 22nd Nov 2020 for primary research studies focused on the management of pilonidal sinus. We extracted data on study design and categorised studies under five major headings ('non-surgical treatment', 'surgical treatment', 'aftercare' and 'other'), producing frequency counts for different study designs. Gaps in research were identified from published systematic reviews and tabulated. RESULTS: We identified 983 eligible studies, of which 36 were systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses; 121 were randomised controlled trials), and 826 observational studies of various design. The majority of studies evaluated surgical techniques (n = 665), or adjuvant medical interventions (n = 98). The literature on wound care has developed most recently, and the evidence base includes 30% randomised controlled trials. Gaps analysis highlighted comparison of surgical techniques including flaps, laser depilation, and wound care interventions as potential areas for randomised controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: This mapping review summarises eight decades of research on the management of pilonidal sinus. Further research is needed to identify front-running interventions, understand variation in practice and patient values, and to prioritise future research.
BACKGROUND: Pilonidal sinus is a hole in the natal cleft which may cause severe pain and become infected. The evidence base for management of pilonidal sinus is said to be poor quality, poorly focused and rapidly proliferating. We undertook a systematic mapping review to provide a broad overview of the field and support the identification of research priorities. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE from inception to 22nd Nov 2020 for primary research studies focused on the management of pilonidal sinus. We extracted data on study design and categorised studies under five major headings ('non-surgical treatment', 'surgical treatment', 'aftercare' and 'other'), producing frequency counts for different study designs. Gaps in research were identified from published systematic reviews and tabulated. RESULTS: We identified 983 eligible studies, of which 36 were systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses; 121 were randomised controlled trials), and 826 observational studies of various design. The majority of studies evaluated surgical techniques (n = 665), or adjuvant medical interventions (n = 98). The literature on wound care has developed most recently, and the evidence base includes 30% randomised controlled trials. Gaps analysis highlighted comparison of surgical techniques including flaps, laser depilation, and wound care interventions as potential areas for randomised controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: This mapping review summarises eight decades of research on the management of pilonidal sinus. Further research is needed to identify front-running interventions, understand variation in practice and patient values, and to prioritise future research.
Entities:
Keywords:
Mapping review; Pilonidal sinus; Surgery; Systematic map; Wound care
Authors: Phil Edwards; Mike Clarke; Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Sarah Pratap; Ian Roberts; Reinhard Wentz Journal: Stat Med Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Marie Österberg; Anders Holmlund; Bo Sunzel; Sofia Tranæus; Svante Twetman; Bodil Lund Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 2.188