| Literature DB >> 35566438 |
Ratnakar Shukla1, Priyanka Karagaiah2, Anant Patil3, Katherine Farnbach4, Alex G Ortega-Loayza4, Thrasivoulos Tzellos5,6, Jacek C Szepietowski7, Mario Giulini8, Hadrian Schepler8, Stephan Grabbe8, Mohamad Goldust8.
Abstract
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, progressive inflammatory disorder of follicular occlusion with pubertal onset that presents as painful inflammatory nodules, sinus tracts, and tunnelling in apocrine-gland-rich areas, such as the axilla, groin, lower back, and buttocks. The disease course is complicated by contractures, keloids, and immobility and is often associated with a low quality of life. It is considered a disorder of follicular occlusion with secondary inflammation, though the exact cause is not known. Management can often be unsatisfactory and challenging due to the chronic nature of the disease and its adverse impact on the quality of life. A multidisciplinary approach is key to prompt optimal disease control. The early stages can be managed with medical treatment, but the advanced stages most likely require surgical intervention. Various surgical options are available, depending upon disease severity and patient preference. In this review an evidence-based outline of surgical options for the treatment of HS are discussed. Case reports, case series, cohort studies, case-control studies, and Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT)s available in medical databases regarding surgical options used in the treatment of HS were considered for the review presented in a narrative manner in this article.Entities:
Keywords: apocrine gland; follicular occlusion; hidradenitis suppurativa
Year: 2022 PMID: 35566438 PMCID: PMC9101712 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092311
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.964
Summary of Surgical Procedures in Hidradenitis Suppurativa.
| Ref. | Procedure | Hurley Stage | Level of Evidence/Strength of Recommendation (7) | Mean Healing Time | Recurrence Rate | Pros | Cons | Complications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ |
| Ⅰ/Ⅱ | Ⅱ/C | 7 to 10 days | ≈100% (12, 13) |
Immediate release of tension Immediate pain relief in acute abcesses Minimally invasive (10) |
Reccurence Temporary treatment |
Infections Sinus formation |
| [ |
| Ⅰ/Ⅱ | Ⅱ/B | 14 days | 27% (34) |
Minimally invasive Preserves normal sorrounding tissue Immediate pain relief |
Temporary. Does not remove diseased tissue entirely |
Infection Hypergranulation tissue in the wound bed (11) |
| [ |
| Ⅱ/Ⅲ | Ⅱ/C | 6 to 12 weeks (12) | 37.6% (38) |
Better cosmetic healing No need for donor tissue Acceptable limb mobility |
Longer healing time Regular dressing changes and wound care |
Postoperative bleeding Exposure of vessels and nerve plexus Secondary infections Contractures |
| [ |
| Ⅱ/Ⅲ | Ⅱ/C | 3.2 weeks (41) | 34% to 66% |
Simple Faster healing Less contracture Better patient satisfaction |
Suitable for small wounds Wound dehiscence |
Suture dehiscence Infections Seroma Keloid |
| [ |
| Ⅱ/Ⅲ | Ⅱ/C | 6 weeks (44) | 33% (45) |
Reduced healing time Cosmetically and fuctionally better |
Graft dehiscence and necrosis Donor site infection, pain, and scarring Reduced mobility |
Graft necrosis Infection Graft contracture Seroma Cellulitis |
| [ |
| Ⅱ/Ⅲ | Ⅱ/C | 2–4 weeks (70) | 19% |
Best method for skin closure Avoids bad scarring |
Difficulty in harvesting. Requires expertise Vascular insufficiency and necrosis Postoperative pain and morbidity |
Brachial plexus damage Flap necrosis Wound dehiscence Haemorrhage |
| [ |
| Ⅱ/Ⅲ | Ⅳ/D | Not known | Not known |
Tissue sparing effect Heals faster Good hemostasis |
Recurrence Low evidence |
Scar formation and contracture Infections |
| [ |
| Ⅰ/Ⅱ | Ⅱ/C | 8 to 10 weeks (63) | 18% (63) |
Immediate hemostasis Bloodless field that offers clear view of surgical site Tissue sparing property |
Scar formation Chance of recurrence |
Postoperative pain Scarring Functional restriction Cellulitis |
| [ |
| Ⅰ/Ⅱ | Ⅱ/B | 1–2 weeks | Not known |
Minimally invasive Reduce the follicle count and thereby eliminate the cause Less scarring Rapid healing |
Postoperative pain Recurrence Limited efficacy in long-standing disease |
temporary paresthesias |
Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy recommendation level: I, good-quality patient-oriented evidence; II, limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; and III, other evidence, including consensus guidelines, opinion, case studies, or disease-oriented evidence. Evidence grading level: A, recommendation based on consistent and good-quality patient-oriented evidence; B, recommendation based on inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence; and C, recommendation based on consensus, opinion, case studies, or disease-oriented evidence [96].