Primary closure or secondary granulation after excision of pilonidal sinus?

Acta chirurgica Scandinavica Pub Date : 1990-10-01
H K al-Hassan, I M Francis, P Neglén
{"title":"Primary closure or secondary granulation after excision of pilonidal sinus?","authors":"H K al-Hassan,&nbsp;I M Francis,&nbsp;P Neglén","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Two methods for treatment of chronic pilonidal disease were compared in a randomised trial of 100 patients with a mean follow-up of 29 months. Four patients were excluded from the excision and closure group, leaving 96 patients for analysis. Initial primary healing was significantly more frequent after excision and primary closure (45/46; 98%) compared with excision and healing by secondary granulation (36/50; 72%). The mean healing time was significantly shorter in the excision and closure group (10.3 days) compared to the excision and granulation group (13 weeks). There was, however, no significant difference between the two groups in cure rate after the first operation. The recurrence rate in the excision and granulation group was 12% and after primary closure 20%. The presence of stiff hair and anaerobic bacteria were related to the failure of primary healing, but not associated with recurrence. Although the cure rate was the same regardless which operation was done, the primary healing was quicker and the healing time and duration of sick-leave were shorter after primary closure. Excision with primary closure therefore seems to be the preferable method.</p>","PeriodicalId":7005,"journal":{"name":"Acta chirurgica Scandinavica","volume":"156 10","pages":"695-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta chirurgica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Two methods for treatment of chronic pilonidal disease were compared in a randomised trial of 100 patients with a mean follow-up of 29 months. Four patients were excluded from the excision and closure group, leaving 96 patients for analysis. Initial primary healing was significantly more frequent after excision and primary closure (45/46; 98%) compared with excision and healing by secondary granulation (36/50; 72%). The mean healing time was significantly shorter in the excision and closure group (10.3 days) compared to the excision and granulation group (13 weeks). There was, however, no significant difference between the two groups in cure rate after the first operation. The recurrence rate in the excision and granulation group was 12% and after primary closure 20%. The presence of stiff hair and anaerobic bacteria were related to the failure of primary healing, but not associated with recurrence. Although the cure rate was the same regardless which operation was done, the primary healing was quicker and the healing time and duration of sick-leave were shorter after primary closure. Excision with primary closure therefore seems to be the preferable method.

毛毛窦切除后的原发性闭合还是继发性肉芽肿?
在一项100例患者平均随访29个月的随机试验中,比较了两种治疗慢性毛鞘疾病的方法。4例患者被排除在切除闭合组,剩下96例患者进行分析。在切除和初次闭合后,初次愈合的频率明显更高(45/46;98%)与切除和继发肉芽愈合相比(36/50;72%)。切除闭合组的平均愈合时间(10.3天)明显短于切除肉芽肿组(13周)。两组患者首次手术后治愈率无显著差异。术后复发率为12%,术后复发率为20%。硬毛和厌氧菌的存在与初次愈合失败有关,但与复发无关。虽然两种手术的治愈率相同,但一期愈合更快,一期闭合后愈合时间和病假时间更短。因此,初步闭合切除似乎是较好的方法。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信