Abstract
A best evidence topic was arranged according to the previously accepted structured protocol. The question addressed here was if flap construction after excision of pilonidal sinus tracks showed difference in functional outcome compared to simple closure. A total of 118 papers were found using the reported search, six represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group, study type, outcomes and key results of these papers are tabulated. Of these six studies, one was one was systematic review of prospective randomized controlled trials and the other five were prospective randomized controlled studies. Four studies showed that flap construction was not superior to simple primary closure techniques in terms of outcome and patient satisfaction. The other two reported that excision and flap construction was better than excision and primary repair in treatment of pilonidal disease.
Highlights
The process of evidence- based medicine (EBM) for searching of the best available evidence for optimization of surgical practice is fundamental in every profession
A total of six hundred and forty-one patients were included in this systematic review
This literature supports the use of the rhomboid flap excision and the Limberg flap-repair procedures over primary midline suture techniques for the elective management of primary pilonidal disease but further high-quality studies are necessary to support this
Summary
The process of evidence- based medicine (EBM) for searching of the best available evidence for optimization of surgical practice is fundamental in every profession. In patients who undergo surgery for pilonidal sinus in case of recurrent diseases, does simple closure as compared to flap surgery improve functional outcome?. Every patient is concerned about the two methods of previous publication [3,4], the author selected only those papers which directly traced and compared the impact of simple closure versus flap reconstructive surgery with respect to functional outcome. This yielded a total of six papers (one was systematic review of prospective randomized controlled trials and the other five were prospective randomized controlled studies). Journal of Surgery [Jurnalul de Chirurgie] 2014; 10(1): 17-20. doi:10.7438/1584-9341-10-1-4
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
