Randomized prospective comparison of midline and off-midline closure techniques in pilonidal sinus surgery

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorSevinc, Baris
dc.contributor.authorKarahan, Omer
dc.contributor.authorOkus, Ahmet
dc.contributor.authorAy, Serden
dc.contributor.authorAksoy, Nergis
dc.contributor.authorSimsek, Gurcan
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-23T14:16:20Z
dc.date.available2024-02-23T14:16:20Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.departmentNEÜen_US
dc.description.abstractBackground. Pilonidal sinus is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the intergluteal sulcus. The disorder often negatively affects patients' quality of life, and there are numerous possible methods of operative treatment for pilonidal sinus. The aim of our study was to compare the results of 3 different operative procedures (tension-free primary closure, Limberg flap, and Karydakis technique) used in the treatment of pilonidal disease. Methods. The study was conducted via a prospective randomized design. The patients were randomized into 3 groups via a closed envelope method. Patients were included in the study after admission to our clinic with pilonidal sinus disease and operative treatment already were planned. The 2 main outcomes of the study were early complications from the methods used and later recurrences of the disease. Results. A total of 150 patients were included in the study, and the groups were similar in terms of age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists scores. The median follow-up time of the study was 24.2 months (range, 18.5-34.27) postsurgery. The recurrence rates were 6% for both the Limberg and Karydakis groups and 4% for the tension-free primary closure group. Therefore, there was no substantial difference in the recurrence rates. Conclusion. The search for an ideal treatment modality for pilonidal sinus disease is still ongoing. The main conclusion of our study is that a tension-free healing side is much more important than a midline suture line. Also, tension-free primary closure is as effective as a flap procedure, and it is also easier to perform.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.surg.2015.09.024
dc.identifier.endpage754en_US
dc.identifier.issn0039-6060
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid26531235en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84973549998en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage749en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.09.024
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/12626
dc.identifier.volume159en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000370313200008en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMosby-Elsevieren_US
dc.relation.ispartofSurgeryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subject[Keyword Not Available]en_US
dc.titleRandomized prospective comparison of midline and off-midline closure techniques in pilonidal sinus surgeryen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu