慢性毛窦疾病手术治疗后的结果:对常用手术技术的系统回顾。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Ida-Marie Myron Wiinblad, Johan Ulrichsen, Birgitte Brandstrup
{"title":"慢性毛窦疾病手术治疗后的结果:对常用手术技术的系统回顾。","authors":"Ida-Marie Myron Wiinblad, Johan Ulrichsen, Birgitte Brandstrup","doi":"10.1097/DCR.0000000000003688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The choice of operation for chronic pilonidal sinus disease remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the outcomes of common operations for chronic pilonidal disease.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>We included randomized trials in English or Danish language, published 2002-2024 comparing operations treating chronic pilonidal disease in adults and teenagers.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>We compared the outcomes of secondary healing, primary midline closure, Bascom's-, Limberg's- and Karydakis' flap operations.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was recurrence; secondary outcomes were infection, healing time, and length-of-stay. We compared recurrence and infection rates in meta-analyses for all techniques. We assessed the risk-of-bias and the quality of all trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty trials included a total of 5762 participants. In a meta-analysis, the flap-operations had fewer recurrences than primary midline closure (OR 0.31 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.51, p < 0.01). The trials comparing Flap-operations with secondary healing were heterogeneous and did not reach significance (OR 0.38 (95% CI, 0.13 to 1.13, p = 0.08). Recurrence was similar between Limberg's- and Karydakis' operations. Infection rates were lower for the flap-operations compared with primary closure (OR 0.33 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.48, p < 0.01) and with secondary healing (OR 0.48 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.77, p < 0.01). Two trials tested Bascom's procedure against Limberg's operation without significant differences. All trials found secondary healing to have significantly longer healing times than any other operation.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Most studies had a high or medium risk-of-bias, resulting in very-low to low certainty of evidence. The trials generally had small numbers, short follow-ups, and no reported primary outcomes or power calculations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Primary closure and secondary healing performed poorly compared with the flap techniques. Most trials tested Limberg's operation; only 2 tested Bascom's operation. The literature suggests the surgeon's expertise determines the choice of flap technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":11299,"journal":{"name":"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcome Following Surgical Treatment for Chronic Pilonidal Sinus Disease: A Systematic Review of Common Surgical Techniques.\",\"authors\":\"Ida-Marie Myron Wiinblad, Johan Ulrichsen, Birgitte Brandstrup\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/DCR.0000000000003688\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The choice of operation for chronic pilonidal sinus disease remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the outcomes of common operations for chronic pilonidal disease.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>We included randomized trials in English or Danish language, published 2002-2024 comparing operations treating chronic pilonidal disease in adults and teenagers.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>We compared the outcomes of secondary healing, primary midline closure, Bascom's-, Limberg's- and Karydakis' flap operations.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was recurrence; secondary outcomes were infection, healing time, and length-of-stay. We compared recurrence and infection rates in meta-analyses for all techniques. We assessed the risk-of-bias and the quality of all trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty trials included a total of 5762 participants. In a meta-analysis, the flap-operations had fewer recurrences than primary midline closure (OR 0.31 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.51, p < 0.01). The trials comparing Flap-operations with secondary healing were heterogeneous and did not reach significance (OR 0.38 (95% CI, 0.13 to 1.13, p = 0.08). Recurrence was similar between Limberg's- and Karydakis' operations. Infection rates were lower for the flap-operations compared with primary closure (OR 0.33 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.48, p < 0.01) and with secondary healing (OR 0.48 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.77, p < 0.01). Two trials tested Bascom's procedure against Limberg's operation without significant differences. All trials found secondary healing to have significantly longer healing times than any other operation.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Most studies had a high or medium risk-of-bias, resulting in very-low to low certainty of evidence. The trials generally had small numbers, short follow-ups, and no reported primary outcomes or power calculations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Primary closure and secondary healing performed poorly compared with the flap techniques. Most trials tested Limberg's operation; only 2 tested Bascom's operation. The literature suggests the surgeon's expertise determines the choice of flap technique.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000003688\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases of the Colon & Rectum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000003688","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:慢性毛窦疾病的手术选择仍有争议。目的:比较慢性毛鞘病常用手术的治疗效果。数据来源:检索PubMed, Embase和Cochrane Library。研究选择:我们纳入了2002-2024年发表的英语或丹麦语的随机试验,比较成人和青少年治疗慢性毛鞘疾病的手术。干预措施:我们比较了继发性愈合、原发性中线闭合、Bascom’s、Limberg’s和Karydakis’s皮瓣手术的结果。主要观察指标:主要观察指标为复发;次要结局是感染、愈合时间和住院时间。我们在荟萃分析中比较了所有技术的复发率和感染率。我们评估了所有试验的偏倚风险和质量。结果:50项试验共纳入5762名受试者。在一项荟萃分析中,皮瓣手术的复发率低于原发性中线闭合(OR 0.31) (95% CI, 0.19至0.51,p < 0.01)。比较皮瓣手术与二次愈合的试验是不均匀的,没有达到显著性(OR 0.38 (95% CI, 0.13至1.13,p = 0.08)。Limberg手术和Karydakis手术的复发率相似。皮瓣手术的感染率低于首次闭合(OR 0.33 (95% CI, 0.23 ~ 0.48, p < 0.01)和二次愈合(OR 0.48 (95% CI, 0.30 ~ 0.77, p < 0.01)。两个试验对巴斯科姆的手术和林伯格的手术进行了测试,没有明显的差异。所有试验都发现,二次愈合的愈合时间明显长于任何其他手术。局限性:大多数研究具有高或中等偏倚风险,导致证据的确定性非常低至低。这些试验通常人数少,随访时间短,没有报告主要结果或功效计算。结论:与皮瓣技术相比,一期闭合和二期愈合效果较差。大多数试验都测试了林伯格的手术;只有2人测试了巴斯科姆的操作。文献表明外科医生的专业知识决定了皮瓣技术的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Outcome Following Surgical Treatment for Chronic Pilonidal Sinus Disease: A Systematic Review of Common Surgical Techniques.

Background: The choice of operation for chronic pilonidal sinus disease remains controversial.

Objective: To compare the outcomes of common operations for chronic pilonidal disease.

Data sources: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.

Study selection: We included randomized trials in English or Danish language, published 2002-2024 comparing operations treating chronic pilonidal disease in adults and teenagers.

Interventions: We compared the outcomes of secondary healing, primary midline closure, Bascom's-, Limberg's- and Karydakis' flap operations.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was recurrence; secondary outcomes were infection, healing time, and length-of-stay. We compared recurrence and infection rates in meta-analyses for all techniques. We assessed the risk-of-bias and the quality of all trials.

Results: Fifty trials included a total of 5762 participants. In a meta-analysis, the flap-operations had fewer recurrences than primary midline closure (OR 0.31 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.51, p < 0.01). The trials comparing Flap-operations with secondary healing were heterogeneous and did not reach significance (OR 0.38 (95% CI, 0.13 to 1.13, p = 0.08). Recurrence was similar between Limberg's- and Karydakis' operations. Infection rates were lower for the flap-operations compared with primary closure (OR 0.33 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.48, p < 0.01) and with secondary healing (OR 0.48 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.77, p < 0.01). Two trials tested Bascom's procedure against Limberg's operation without significant differences. All trials found secondary healing to have significantly longer healing times than any other operation.

Limitations: Most studies had a high or medium risk-of-bias, resulting in very-low to low certainty of evidence. The trials generally had small numbers, short follow-ups, and no reported primary outcomes or power calculations.

Conclusions: Primary closure and secondary healing performed poorly compared with the flap techniques. Most trials tested Limberg's operation; only 2 tested Bascom's operation. The literature suggests the surgeon's expertise determines the choice of flap technique.

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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
572
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Diseases of the Colon & Rectum (DCR) is the official journal of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) dedicated to advancing the knowledge of intestinal disorders by providing a forum for communication amongst their members. The journal features timely editorials, original contributions and technical notes.
×
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