| Literature DB >> 36237808 |
Ertugrul G Alkurt1, Yaşar Murat Vardar2, İshak Sefa Tüzün2.
Abstract
Background Pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) is a chronic inflammation and infection of the sacrococcygeal region. It often affects young adult males and produces clinical findings with abscess and discharge in the sacrococcygeal region or painful sinus tract in the natal cleft. The best surgical technique for sacrococcygeal PSD is still disputed. This study aimed to compare the Karydakis flap technique (KFT) and Limberg flap technique (LFT) used in the surgical treatment of the sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus. Methodology A total of 140 patients diagnosed with pilonidal sinus between 2010 and 2012 were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups, namely, LFT (n = 73) and KFT (n = 67). Preoperative findings of the patients, surgical findings, and short and long-term postoperative findings were recorded and statistically compared. Results Regarding cosmetic results, the Karydakis flap was better than the Limberg flap with a faster return to normal life. There was no statistical difference between the two groups concerning wound dehiscence, postoperative visual analog scale scores, seroma formation, and recurrence. Conclusions Considering the faster return to normal life and greater cosmetic satisfaction of the patients, the KFT should be chosen instead of the LFT as the standard technique in pilonidal sinus surgery.Entities:
Keywords: karydakis flap; limberg flap; pilonidal sinus surgery; pilonidal sinus treatment; prospective study
Year: 2022 PMID: 36237808 PMCID: PMC9547553 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28933
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1Limberg flap technique.
A: Marking equilateral triangles before the excision. B: Excision of the sinus along with the rhomboid. C: Creating a rotational flap. D: Appearance of the wound at the end of the operation.
Figure 2Karidakis flap technique.
A: Simple elliptical excision. B: Flap elevation. C: Approximation and closure of the wound. D: Final view of the surgical area.
Comparison of Limberg flap and Karydakis flap techniques.
*Student’s t-test; **Chi-square test; ***Mann-Whitney U test.
BMI: body mass index; VAS: visual analog scale
| Group 1 (n = 73) | Group 2 (n = 67) | P-value | ||
| Female | 6 (8.2%) | 11 (16.4%) | 0.138* | |
| Male | 67 (91.8%) | 56 (83.6%) | ||
| Age, years | 25.5 ± 6.78 | 26.4 ± 8.48 | 0.514* | |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 24.61 ± 3.74 | 24.26 ± 3.54 | 0.574** | |
| Sinuses, n | 1 | 34 (42.5%) | 28 (41.8%) | 0.936** |
| 2 or more | 42 (57.5%) | 39 (58.2%) | ||
| Operation time | 0–60 minute | 47 (64.4%) | 51 (76.1%) | 0.13** |
| 60–90 minute | 26 (35.6) | 16 (23.9%) | ||
| Wound dehiscence | (-) | 68 (93.2%) | 65 (97%) | 0.295*** |
| (+) | 5 (6.8%) | 2 (3%) | ||
| Seroma | (-) | 65 (89%) | 62 (92.5%) | 0.476*** |
| (+) | 8 (11%) | 5 (7.5%) | ||
| Postoperative VAS | 1.15 ± 0.6 | 1 ± 0.65 | 0.17** | |
| Cosmetic result | Not satisfied | 16 (21.9%) | 3 (4.5%) | 0.003** |
| Satisfied | 57 (78.1%) | 64 (95.5%) | ||
| Recurrence | (-) | 68 (93.2%) | 61 (91%) | 0.644** |
| (+) | 5 (6.8%) | 6 (9%) | ||
| Back to work day | 11.64 ± 1.91 | 10.56 ± 1.19 | 0.001** |