吸漏封闭技术与部分封闭技术在毛窦中线修复中的比较研究

IF 0.6 Q4 SURGERY Open Access Surgery Pub Date : 2021-05-01 DOI:10.2147/OAS.S308212
Ahmed Aly Khalil, Mohamed Elshawy, M. Elbarbary, Yasser Elghamrini
{"title":"吸漏封闭技术与部分封闭技术在毛窦中线修复中的比较研究","authors":"Ahmed Aly Khalil, Mohamed Elshawy, M. Elbarbary, Yasser Elghamrini","doi":"10.2147/OAS.S308212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Pilonidal sinus (PNS) is a common disorder that mainly affects young adults. It can be asymptomatic or presented by discomfort, inflammation, abscess or sinus formation. Despite current advances in surgical techniques, the best option to treat PNS is not yet well defined. Many studies reported techniques that involved excision of the sinus and closure of the deep and superficial layers but leaving the skin open. Aim: We aim to compare between the excision and primary midline closure with suction drain versus the partial closure technique as treatment options for PNS in terms of recovery, wound complications and recurrence rate. Patients and Methods: A prospective comparative study at Ain Shams University Hospitals that included 80 patients with PNS was conducted from January 2018 to June 2019. They were divided randomly into group A; 40 patients that had the midline closed method with suction drain and group B; 40 patients that underwent the partial closure technique. Both groups were followed up for 1 year, detecting healing time, wound complications, return to usual activities and recurrence rate. Results: We detected significant differences between both groups as regards to pain and discomfort postoperatively, favoring the partial closure group. Mean time to wound healing was significantly shorter among group A (14.43 ± 3.13) though mean time of return to usual activities was faster among the partial closure group (14.45 ± 1.15). There were no statistically significant differences between both groups as regards to wound infection, dehiscence or hematoma formation. Wound seroma was more among group A. Conclusion: The partial midline closure technique showed comparable results to the closed method with suction drain in management of PNS disease. Indeed, it shows less postoperative complications and a faster return to usual daily activity. Yet, more studies are required to demonstrate its reproducibility.","PeriodicalId":56363,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Surgery","volume":"Volume 14 1","pages":"21-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Closed Technique with Suction Drain versus Partial Closure Technique in Midline Repair of Pilonidal Sinus: A Comparative Study\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Aly Khalil, Mohamed Elshawy, M. Elbarbary, Yasser Elghamrini\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/OAS.S308212\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Pilonidal sinus (PNS) is a common disorder that mainly affects young adults. It can be asymptomatic or presented by discomfort, inflammation, abscess or sinus formation. Despite current advances in surgical techniques, the best option to treat PNS is not yet well defined. Many studies reported techniques that involved excision of the sinus and closure of the deep and superficial layers but leaving the skin open. Aim: We aim to compare between the excision and primary midline closure with suction drain versus the partial closure technique as treatment options for PNS in terms of recovery, wound complications and recurrence rate. Patients and Methods: A prospective comparative study at Ain Shams University Hospitals that included 80 patients with PNS was conducted from January 2018 to June 2019. They were divided randomly into group A; 40 patients that had the midline closed method with suction drain and group B; 40 patients that underwent the partial closure technique. Both groups were followed up for 1 year, detecting healing time, wound complications, return to usual activities and recurrence rate. Results: We detected significant differences between both groups as regards to pain and discomfort postoperatively, favoring the partial closure group. Mean time to wound healing was significantly shorter among group A (14.43 ± 3.13) though mean time of return to usual activities was faster among the partial closure group (14.45 ± 1.15). There were no statistically significant differences between both groups as regards to wound infection, dehiscence or hematoma formation. Wound seroma was more among group A. Conclusion: The partial midline closure technique showed comparable results to the closed method with suction drain in management of PNS disease. Indeed, it shows less postoperative complications and a faster return to usual daily activity. Yet, more studies are required to demonstrate its reproducibility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":56363,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Access Surgery\",\"volume\":\"Volume 14 1\",\"pages\":\"21-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Access Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAS.S308212\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAS.S308212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:毛突窦(PNS)是一种常见病,主要影响年轻人。它可以是无症状或表现为不适,炎症,脓肿或窦形成。尽管目前外科技术进步,但治疗PNS的最佳选择尚未明确。许多研究报告的技术包括切除鼻窦和关闭深层和浅层,但保留皮肤开放。目的:我们的目的是比较在恢复、伤口并发症和复发率方面,作为PNS的治疗选择,切除和一次中线闭合与抽吸引流与部分闭合技术。患者和方法:2018年1月至2019年6月,在艾因沙姆斯大学医院进行了一项前瞻性比较研究,纳入了80例PNS患者。随机分为A组;B组和中线封闭吸液引流40例;40名患者接受了部分缝合术。两组均随访1年,观察愈合时间、创面并发症、恢复正常活动及复发率。结果:我们发现两组在术后疼痛和不适方面有显著差异,偏向部分闭合组。A组平均创面愈合时间(14.43±3.13)明显缩短,部分闭合组平均恢复正常活动时间(14.45±1.15)明显缩短。两组在伤口感染、裂开、血肿形成方面无统计学差异。结论:部分中线闭合术治疗PNS疾病的效果与闭合加吸引引流术相当。事实上,它显示出更少的术后并发症和更快地恢复正常的日常活动。然而,需要更多的研究来证明其可重复性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Closed Technique with Suction Drain versus Partial Closure Technique in Midline Repair of Pilonidal Sinus: A Comparative Study
Background: Pilonidal sinus (PNS) is a common disorder that mainly affects young adults. It can be asymptomatic or presented by discomfort, inflammation, abscess or sinus formation. Despite current advances in surgical techniques, the best option to treat PNS is not yet well defined. Many studies reported techniques that involved excision of the sinus and closure of the deep and superficial layers but leaving the skin open. Aim: We aim to compare between the excision and primary midline closure with suction drain versus the partial closure technique as treatment options for PNS in terms of recovery, wound complications and recurrence rate. Patients and Methods: A prospective comparative study at Ain Shams University Hospitals that included 80 patients with PNS was conducted from January 2018 to June 2019. They were divided randomly into group A; 40 patients that had the midline closed method with suction drain and group B; 40 patients that underwent the partial closure technique. Both groups were followed up for 1 year, detecting healing time, wound complications, return to usual activities and recurrence rate. Results: We detected significant differences between both groups as regards to pain and discomfort postoperatively, favoring the partial closure group. Mean time to wound healing was significantly shorter among group A (14.43 ± 3.13) though mean time of return to usual activities was faster among the partial closure group (14.45 ± 1.15). There were no statistically significant differences between both groups as regards to wound infection, dehiscence or hematoma formation. Wound seroma was more among group A. Conclusion: The partial midline closure technique showed comparable results to the closed method with suction drain in management of PNS disease. Indeed, it shows less postoperative complications and a faster return to usual daily activity. Yet, more studies are required to demonstrate its reproducibility.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Access Surgery is an international, peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that focuses on all aspects of surgical procedures and interventions. Patient care around the peri-operative period and patient outcomes post surgery are key topics for the journal. All grades of surgery from minor cosmetic interventions to major surgical procedures will be covered. Novel techniques and the utilization of new instruments and materials, including implants and prostheses that optimize outcomes constitute major areas of interest. Contributions regarding patient satisfaction, preference, quality of life, and their role in optimizing new surgical procedures will be welcomed. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of case reports, clinical studies, reviews and original research.
期刊最新文献
Affinity of Colonic Granular Cell Tumor Within the Right Colon: Case Report and Review of Literature Rare Classic Presentation of Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Case Report and Literature Review Treatment Outcomes of Non-Traumatic Acute Abdomen and Its Associated Factors in Adult Patients at Tibebe Ghion Specialized Hospital, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia: Cross-Sectional Study Cecal Volvulus in Pregnancy, a Diagnostic Dilemma and Management: A Case Report and Literature Review Appendicitis During Pregnancy: Best Surgical Practices and Clinical Management
×
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:481959085
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