{"title":"微创针毛窦治疗:EPSIT与PEBAI方法。","authors":"Baris Gulcu, Ersin Ozturk","doi":"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001245","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We aimed to compare endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSIT) and pit/sinus punch needle excision, brushing, ablation and irrigation (PEBAI) method that was performed with principles similar to EPSIT but without fistuloscope and vision in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent EPSIT and PEBAI methods for PSD in a single center between January 2020 and October 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was healing, the secondary endpoints were operative time, pain, wound closure, quality of life, cosmetic results, and cost.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred 4 patients who underwent EPSIT and 184 patients who underwent PEBAI were included in the study. Age ( P =0.871), sex ( P =0.669), BMI ( P =0.176), number of pits ( P =0.99) were similar in both groups. The operative time for PEBAI [20 min (18 to 32)] was shorter than EPSIT [32 min (24 to 44)] ( P <0.0000, u value=3096, z-score=-9.459). Postoperative first ( P =0.147) and 14th day( P =0.382) pain scores, postoperative analgesic requirements ( P =0.609), time to return to daily activities ( P =0.747), time to return to work ( P =0.345), and wound complications ( P =0.816) were similar, whereas the wound closure time was earlier after EPSIT [32 d (24 to 41)] than after PEBAI [37 d (26 to 58)] ( P <0.00001, u value=5344, z-score=6.22141). The median follow-up was 24 (12 to 34) months. Complete wound healing ( P =0.382), recurrence rate ( P =0.533), quality of life at first month and (Wound evaluation scale score at first year ( P =0.252) were similar in both groups. However, the cost of PEBAI [54.8 € (50.13 to 64.96)] was significantly lower than cost of EPSIT [147.36 € (132.53 to 169.60)] ( P <0.00001, u value=0, z-score=7.210).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PEBAI method is a cheaper alternative to EPSIT with similar surgical principles and clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":22092,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","volume":" ","pages":"48-53"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimally Invasive Pilonidal Sinus Treatment: EPSIT Versus PEBAI Method.\",\"authors\":\"Baris Gulcu, Ersin Ozturk\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SLE.0000000000001245\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We aimed to compare endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSIT) and pit/sinus punch needle excision, brushing, ablation and irrigation (PEBAI) method that was performed with principles similar to EPSIT but without fistuloscope and vision in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent EPSIT and PEBAI methods for PSD in a single center between January 2020 and October 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was healing, the secondary endpoints were operative time, pain, wound closure, quality of life, cosmetic results, and cost.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred 4 patients who underwent EPSIT and 184 patients who underwent PEBAI were included in the study. Age ( P =0.871), sex ( P =0.669), BMI ( P =0.176), number of pits ( P =0.99) were similar in both groups. The operative time for PEBAI [20 min (18 to 32)] was shorter than EPSIT [32 min (24 to 44)] ( P <0.0000, u value=3096, z-score=-9.459). Postoperative first ( P =0.147) and 14th day( P =0.382) pain scores, postoperative analgesic requirements ( P =0.609), time to return to daily activities ( P =0.747), time to return to work ( P =0.345), and wound complications ( P =0.816) were similar, whereas the wound closure time was earlier after EPSIT [32 d (24 to 41)] than after PEBAI [37 d (26 to 58)] ( P <0.00001, u value=5344, z-score=6.22141). The median follow-up was 24 (12 to 34) months. Complete wound healing ( P =0.382), recurrence rate ( P =0.533), quality of life at first month and (Wound evaluation scale score at first year ( P =0.252) were similar in both groups. However, the cost of PEBAI [54.8 € (50.13 to 64.96)] was significantly lower than cost of EPSIT [147.36 € (132.53 to 169.60)] ( P <0.00001, u value=0, z-score=7.210).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PEBAI method is a cheaper alternative to EPSIT with similar surgical principles and clinical outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22092,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"48-53\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001245\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001245","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Minimally Invasive Pilonidal Sinus Treatment: EPSIT Versus PEBAI Method.
Purpose: We aimed to compare endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSIT) and pit/sinus punch needle excision, brushing, ablation and irrigation (PEBAI) method that was performed with principles similar to EPSIT but without fistuloscope and vision in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD).
Methods: Patients who underwent EPSIT and PEBAI methods for PSD in a single center between January 2020 and October 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was healing, the secondary endpoints were operative time, pain, wound closure, quality of life, cosmetic results, and cost.
Results: One hundred 4 patients who underwent EPSIT and 184 patients who underwent PEBAI were included in the study. Age ( P =0.871), sex ( P =0.669), BMI ( P =0.176), number of pits ( P =0.99) were similar in both groups. The operative time for PEBAI [20 min (18 to 32)] was shorter than EPSIT [32 min (24 to 44)] ( P <0.0000, u value=3096, z-score=-9.459). Postoperative first ( P =0.147) and 14th day( P =0.382) pain scores, postoperative analgesic requirements ( P =0.609), time to return to daily activities ( P =0.747), time to return to work ( P =0.345), and wound complications ( P =0.816) were similar, whereas the wound closure time was earlier after EPSIT [32 d (24 to 41)] than after PEBAI [37 d (26 to 58)] ( P <0.00001, u value=5344, z-score=6.22141). The median follow-up was 24 (12 to 34) months. Complete wound healing ( P =0.382), recurrence rate ( P =0.533), quality of life at first month and (Wound evaluation scale score at first year ( P =0.252) were similar in both groups. However, the cost of PEBAI [54.8 € (50.13 to 64.96)] was significantly lower than cost of EPSIT [147.36 € (132.53 to 169.60)] ( P <0.00001, u value=0, z-score=7.210).
Conclusions: PEBAI method is a cheaper alternative to EPSIT with similar surgical principles and clinical outcomes.
期刊介绍:
Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques is a primary source for peer-reviewed, original articles on the newest techniques and applications in operative laparoscopy and endoscopy. Its Editorial Board includes many of the surgeons who pioneered the use of these revolutionary techniques. The journal provides complete, timely, accurate, practical coverage of laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques and procedures; current clinical and basic science research; preoperative and postoperative patient management; complications in laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery; and new developments in instrumentation and technology.