Endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment versus excision with wound closure: a systematic review of the literature.

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Minerva Surgery Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-03 DOI:10.23736/S2724-5691.25.10615-1
Stefano Agnesi, Francesco Virgilio, Francesco S Candiloro, Letizia Biundo, Andrea Balla
{"title":"Endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment versus excision with wound closure: a systematic review of the literature.","authors":"Stefano Agnesi, Francesco Virgilio, Francesco S Candiloro, Letizia Biundo, Andrea Balla","doi":"10.23736/S2724-5691.25.10615-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive procedures versus excision and wound closure for the treatment of pilonidal disease (PD) in terms of perioperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>Search was performed in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, founding 581 articles.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>Six articles published between 2018 and 2023, including 595 patients were included in the present systematic review. All of these studies presented endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSIT) as the minimally invasive surgical technique for the treatment of pilonidal disease, while no articles meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria addressed video-assisted ablation of pilonidal sinus. One hundred eighty-two patients (30.6%) underwent EPSIT (Group A), whereas 413 (69.4%) underwent excision and wound closure (Group B). Patients in Group A experienced shorter operative times (42.1±16 minutes) and hospital stay (0.5±0.3 days) in comparison to Groups B (59.3±19 minutes and 2.4±1 days, respectively). Group A had lower complication rate (12.5%) compared to Group B (35.2%) and recurrence rate (17.9% versus 14.8%). Wound dehiscence rate was 12.8% in Group B. Mean time to complete healing was longer in Group A than Group B (47.9±26.1 days and 39.1±22.3 days, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EPSIT requires approximately 9 additional days to fully heal, but it avoids the risk of wound dehiscence, and had fewer complications, along with a shorter hospital stay, compared to those treated with excision and wound closure. The choice of treatment should be personalized, considering the individual needs and specific risk factors for wound dehiscence.</p>","PeriodicalId":29847,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"314-322"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5691.25.10615-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this systematic review was to compare minimally invasive procedures versus excision and wound closure for the treatment of pilonidal disease (PD) in terms of perioperative outcomes.

Evidence acquisition: Search was performed in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, founding 581 articles.

Evidence synthesis: Six articles published between 2018 and 2023, including 595 patients were included in the present systematic review. All of these studies presented endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSIT) as the minimally invasive surgical technique for the treatment of pilonidal disease, while no articles meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria addressed video-assisted ablation of pilonidal sinus. One hundred eighty-two patients (30.6%) underwent EPSIT (Group A), whereas 413 (69.4%) underwent excision and wound closure (Group B). Patients in Group A experienced shorter operative times (42.1±16 minutes) and hospital stay (0.5±0.3 days) in comparison to Groups B (59.3±19 minutes and 2.4±1 days, respectively). Group A had lower complication rate (12.5%) compared to Group B (35.2%) and recurrence rate (17.9% versus 14.8%). Wound dehiscence rate was 12.8% in Group B. Mean time to complete healing was longer in Group A than Group B (47.9±26.1 days and 39.1±22.3 days, respectively).

Conclusions: EPSIT requires approximately 9 additional days to fully heal, but it avoids the risk of wound dehiscence, and had fewer complications, along with a shorter hospital stay, compared to those treated with excision and wound closure. The choice of treatment should be personalized, considering the individual needs and specific risk factors for wound dehiscence.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内窥镜治疗与伤口闭合切除:文献的系统回顾。
引言:本系统综述旨在比较微创手术与切除术和伤口闭合术治疗朝天鼻病(PD)的围术期疗效:在PubMed、Embase和Web of Science进行检索,共发现581篇文章:本系统综述纳入了 2018 年至 2023 年间发表的 6 篇文章,包括 595 名患者。所有这些研究都介绍了内镜朝天鼻窦治疗(EPSIT)作为治疗朝天鼻疾病的微创外科技术,而符合纳入和排除标准的文章均未涉及视频辅助朝天鼻窦消融术。182名患者(30.6%)接受了EPSIT治疗(A组),而413名患者(69.4%)接受了切除和伤口闭合治疗(B组)。与 B 组(分别为 59.3±19 分钟和 2.4±1 天)相比,A 组患者的手术时间(42.1±16 分钟)和住院时间(0.5±0.3 天)更短。与 B 组(35.2%)和复发率(17.9% 对 14.8%)相比,A 组的并发症发生率(12.5%)更低。A组完全愈合的平均时间比B组长(分别为47.9±26.1天和39.1±22.3天):结论:与采用切除和伤口闭合治疗的患者相比,EPSIT需要额外增加约9天的时间才能完全愈合,但它避免了伤口开裂的风险,并发症更少,住院时间更短。治疗方法的选择应个性化,考虑个人需求和伤口开裂的特定风险因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva Surgery
Minerva Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
320
期刊最新文献
Dexmedetomidine during carotid endarterectomy: a registry on safety and satisfaction of patients and operators (DexTEA). Comment on: "Basal cell adenoma and pleomorphic adenoma of the parotid gland: a single center experience". Comparison of long-term effects and clinical value analysis of trephination surgery and non-surgical treatment in scar repair. Therapeutic effect of warm acupuncture at Jiaji point combined with lumbar back muscle training on lumbar disc herniation. Research on the management effect and tangible and intangible results of PDCA management cycle method in the quality of hospital disinfection supply center.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1