Volume 30, Issue 3 (Avicenna Journal of Clinical Medicine-Autumn 2023)
Avicenna J Clin Med 2023, 30(3): 179-186 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Imani B, Souri S, Salehi M, Ehsani M H. Technical Comparison of Three Surgical Methods: Open, Semi-closure, and Primary Closure in the Treatment of Pilonidal Sinus. Avicenna J Clin Med 2023; 30 (3) :179-186
URL: http://sjh.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-2833-en.html
URL: http://sjh.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-2833-en.html
1- Department of Operating Room, School of Paramedicine, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2- Student Research Committee, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
3- Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Student Research Committee, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
3- Department of General Surgery, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (811 Views)
Background and Objective: Pilonidal sinus of the sacrum is a relatively common chronic infectious disease. Surgical management of pilonidal sinus is a challenging matter, and despite the different surgical techniques, the recurrence rate is still high.
Materials and Methods: This double-blind clinical trial study was conducted on 60 patients with pilonidal sinus (2023). These patients underwent surgery randomly and based on the available sampling method in three methods: open, semi-closure, and primary closure. Recovery time and intraoperative bleeding were recorded. The McGill Pain Questionnaire was used to evaluate postoperative pain, and the Southampton scale was employed to assess infection and secretions.
Results: The recovery time was longer in the open method than in the closure and semi-closure methods (P=0.001). However, this difference did not exist between the closure and semi-closure methods (P=0.402). There were two cases of recurrence in the closed method, while no recurrence was observed in the open and semi-closure methods. The patients undergoing the closure surgical method experienced less bleeding postoperatively (P=0.002). No significant relationship was found between surgical method and infection (P=0.189). There was no significant difference in the intensity of pain experienced by patients after the operation (P=0.789).
Conclusion: For the treatment of pilonidal sinus, primary surgical closure is not recommended due to recurrences, despite the shorter recovery time and less bleeding. The semi-closure surgical method seems to be safer than the open and primary closure methods.
Materials and Methods: This double-blind clinical trial study was conducted on 60 patients with pilonidal sinus (2023). These patients underwent surgery randomly and based on the available sampling method in three methods: open, semi-closure, and primary closure. Recovery time and intraoperative bleeding were recorded. The McGill Pain Questionnaire was used to evaluate postoperative pain, and the Southampton scale was employed to assess infection and secretions.
Results: The recovery time was longer in the open method than in the closure and semi-closure methods (P=0.001). However, this difference did not exist between the closure and semi-closure methods (P=0.402). There were two cases of recurrence in the closed method, while no recurrence was observed in the open and semi-closure methods. The patients undergoing the closure surgical method experienced less bleeding postoperatively (P=0.002). No significant relationship was found between surgical method and infection (P=0.189). There was no significant difference in the intensity of pain experienced by patients after the operation (P=0.789).
Conclusion: For the treatment of pilonidal sinus, primary surgical closure is not recommended due to recurrences, despite the shorter recovery time and less bleeding. The semi-closure surgical method seems to be safer than the open and primary closure methods.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
General Surgery
Extended Abstract [HTML 28 KB] (38 Download)
References
1. Nixon AT, Garza RF. Pilonidal Cyst and Sinus. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023.
2. Seow-Choen F, Seow-En I, editors. Pilonidal disease: A new look at an old disease. Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2022;33(4): 100909. DOI:10.1016/j.scrs.2022.100909
3. Lindholt-Jensen CS, Lindholt JS, Beyer M, Lindholt JS. Nd-YAG laser treatment of primary and recurrent pilonidal sinus. Lasers Med Sci. 2012;27:505-8. PMID: 21927795 DOI: 10.1007/s10103-011-0990-2
4. Kober M-M, Alapati U, Khachemoune A. Treatment options for pilonidal sinus. Cutis. 2018;102(4):E23-E9. PMID: 30489572
5. Mehrvarz S, Mohebbi HA, Manoochehry S, Arjmand S, Rasouli HR. Comparison of outcomes in four different surgical methods for sacral pilonidal sinus with long-term follows-up. Tehran University Medical Journal. 2019;76(10):660-4.
6. Galbraith NJ, McCollum C, Di Mascio L, Lowrie J, Hinckley M, Lo S, etal. Effect of differing flap reconstruction strategies in perineal closure following advanced pelvic oncological resection: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2023;109(11):3375-82. DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000617
7. Abdulraheem F, Boutros M, editors. Pilonidal disease in 2022: where do we stand? Seminars in Colon and Rectal Surgery. 2022;4: 100910. DOI: 10.1016/j.scrs.2022.100910
8. Hadi MA, Ibrahim SM, Samee AA. A study on different modalities of treatment for pilonidal sinus. Int J Surg Sci. 2020;4(4):87-91. DOI:10.33545/surgery.2020.v4.i4b.544
9. Abdallah YM, Abdel Moneim HM, Ibrahim S, El-Taher AK, Zaitoun MA. Evaluation of Different Methods of Treatment of Pilonidal Sinus; a Randomized Controlled Trial. Zagazig University Medical Journal. 2021. DOI: 10.21608/zumj.2021.79080.2250
10. Fallah H, Sayadiniya M, Safarpanah M. Comparison of the Results of Two Open and Semi-Closed Surgical Methods in the Treatment of Pilonidal Sinus. Journal of Zabol Medical School. 2023;6(1). DOI: 10.18502/jzms.v6i1.13601
11. Ekici U, Kanlıöz M, Ferhatoğlu MF, Kartal A. A comparative analysis of four different surgical methods for treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus. Asian J Surg. 2019;42(10):907-13. PMID: 30685149 DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.12.011
12. Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. pain. 1975;1(3):277-99. PMID: 1235985 DOI: 10.1016/0304-3959(75)90044-5
13. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Revicki DA, Harding G, Coyne KS, Peirce-Sandner S, et al. Development and initial validation of an expanded and revised version of the Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ-2). Pain. 2009;144(1-2):35-42. PMID: 19356853 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2009.02.007
14. Hull TL, Wu J. Pilonidal disease. Surgical Clinics. 2002;82(6):1169-85. PMID: 12516846 DOI: 10.1016/s0039-6109(02)00062-2
15. Tavassoli A, Noorshafiee S, Nazarzadeh R. Comparison of excision with primary repair versus Limberg flap. Int J Surg. 2011;9(4):343-6. PMID: 21354343 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.02.009
16. Luedi MM, Schober P, Stauffer VK, Diekmann M, Andereggen L, Doll D. Gender-specific prevalence of pilonidal sinus disease over time: A systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2021;91(7-8):1582-87. PMID: 34101331 DOI: 10.1111/ans.16990
17. Yildiz T, Elmas B, Yucak A, Turgut HT, Ilce Z. Risk factors for pilonidal sinus disease in teenagers. Indian J Pediatr. 2017;84:134-8. PMID: 27306225 DOI: 10.1007/s12098-016-2180-5
18. Shakor FN, Ismaeil DA, Hiwa Arif S, Saeed AH. Comparison of Primary Midline Closure and Open Surgery for Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus: A Retrospective Study. Kirkuk Journal of Medical Sciences. 2021;7(1):44-52. DOI: 10.32894/kjms.2021.169389
19. Jamil MA, Anwar MI, Saleem MW, Tahir S, Javaid H.Comparison of two Different Surgical Modalities in the treatment of Pilonidal Sinus (Primary Closure and Open Technique).PJMHS.2021;15(11). DOI: 10.53350/pjmhs2115112999
20. ElGohary H. Semi-Closed Method as Alternative to Open and Closed Methods for the Treatment of Pilonidal Sinus Disease. Ain Shams Journal of Surgery. 2017;10(2):188-92. DOI: 10.21608/asjs.2017.178399
21. Sahsamanis G, Samaras S, Mitsopoulos G, Deverakis T, Dimitrakopoulos G, Pinialidis D. Semi-closed surgical technique for treatment of pilonidal sinus disease. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2017;15:47-51. PMID: 28228944 DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2017.02.004
22. Milone M, Velotti N, Manigrasso M, Anoldo P, Milone F, De Palma G. Long-term follow-up for pilonidal sinus surgery: a review of literature with metanalysis. Surgeon. 2018;16(5):315-20. PMID: 29699781 DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2018.03.009
23. Muzi MG, Milito G, Nigro C, Cadeddu F, Farinon AM. A modification of primary closure for the treatment of pilonidal disease in day-care setting. A modification of primary closure for the treatment of pilonidal disease in day-care setting. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(1):84-8. PMID: 18462226 DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01534.x
24. Stauffer VK, Luedi MM, Kauf P, Schmid M, Diekmann M, Wieferich K, et al. Common surgical procedures in pilonidal sinus disease: A meta-analysis, merged data analysis, and comprehensive study on recurrence. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):3058. PMID: 29449548 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-20143-4
25. Iesalnieks I, Ommer A, Petersen S, Doll D, Herold A. German national guideline on the management of pilonidal disease. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016;401:599-609. PMID: 27311698 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-016-1463-7
26. Rashidian N, Vahedian-Ardakani J, Baghai-Wadji M, Keramati MR, Saraee A, Ansari K, et al. How to repair the surgical defect after excision of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus: a dilemma. J Wound Care. 2014;23(12):630-3. PMID: 25492279 DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2014.23.12.630
27. Racine M, Tousignant-Laflamme Y, Kloda LA, Dion D, Dupuis G, Choinière M. A systematic literature review of 10 years of research on sex/gender and experimental pain perception - part 1: are there really differences between women and men? Pain. 2012;153(3):602-18. PMID: 22192712 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2011.11.025
28. Nascimento MG, Kosminsky M, Chi M. Gender role in pain perception and expression: an integrative review. BrJP. 2020;3:58-62. DOI: 10.5935/2595-0118.20200013
29. Archey M, Goldey K, Crockett E, Boyette-Davis J. An Investigation of the Effects of Testosterone and Behavioral Expressions of Pain on Sex/Gender Differences in Pain Perception. Psychol Rep. 2019;122(3):826-40. PMID: 29871531 DOI: 10.1177/0033294118781320
30. Fillingim RB, King CD, Ribeiro-Dasilva MC, Rahim-Williams B, Riley JL, 3rd. Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings. J Pain. 2009;10(5):447-85. PMID: 19411059 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2008.12.001
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Articles Copyright © The Author(s).
Owned by Hamadan University of Medical Sciences
Published by UMSHA Press
Journal Tel: +988138380924
Publisher Tel:+988138380548
Website: http://sjh.umsha.ac.ir
Email: s_ journal[at]umsha.ac.ir
