毛窦:如何选择切除和开放肉芽处理还是切除和初步闭合?对1991 ~ 1995年间接受手术的141例患者的研究。

C Perruchoud, H Vuilleumier, J C Givel
{"title":"毛窦:如何选择切除和开放肉芽处理还是切除和初步闭合?对1991 ~ 1995年间接受手术的141例患者的研究。","authors":"C Perruchoud,&nbsp;H Vuilleumier,&nbsp;J C Givel","doi":"10.1024/1023-9332.8.6.255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate excision and open granulation versus excision and primary closure as treatments for pilonidal sinus.</p><p><strong>Subjects and methods: </strong>We evaluated a group of 141 patients operated on for a pilonidal sinus between 1991 and 1995. Ninety patients were treated by excision and open granulation, 34 patients by excision and primary closure and 17 patients by incision and drainage, as a unique treatment of an infected pilonidal sinus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The first group, receiving treatment of excision and open granulation, experienced the following outcomes: average length of hospital stay, four days; average healing time; 72 days; average number of post-operative ambulatory visits, 40; average off-work delay, 38 days; and average follow-up time, 43 months. There were five recurrences (6%) in this group during the follow-up period. For the second group treated by excision and primary closure, the corresponding outcome measurements were as follows: average length of hospital stay, four days; average healing time, 23 days; primary healing failure rate, 9%; average number of post-operative ambulatory visits, 6; average off-work delay, 21 days. The average follow-up time was 34 months, and two recurrences (6%) were observed during the follow-up period. In the third group, seventeen patients benefited from an incision and drainage as unique treatment. The mean follow-up was 37 months. Five recurrences (29%) were noticed, requiring a new operation in all the cases.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>This series of 141 patients is too limited to permit final conclusions to be drawn concerning significant advantages of one form of treatment compared to the other. Nevertheless, primary closure offers the advantages of quicker healing time, fewer post-operative visits and shorter time off work. When a primary closure can be carried out, it should be routinely considered for socioeconomical and comfort reasons.</p>","PeriodicalId":79425,"journal":{"name":"Swiss surgery = Schweizer Chirurgie = Chirurgie suisse = Chirurgia svizzera","volume":"8 6","pages":"255-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"53","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pilonidal sinus: how to choose between excision and open granulation versus excision and primary closure? Study of a series of 141 patients operated on from 1991 to 1995.\",\"authors\":\"C Perruchoud,&nbsp;H Vuilleumier,&nbsp;J C Givel\",\"doi\":\"10.1024/1023-9332.8.6.255\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The purpose of this study was to evaluate excision and open granulation versus excision and primary closure as treatments for pilonidal sinus.</p><p><strong>Subjects and methods: </strong>We evaluated a group of 141 patients operated on for a pilonidal sinus between 1991 and 1995. Ninety patients were treated by excision and open granulation, 34 patients by excision and primary closure and 17 patients by incision and drainage, as a unique treatment of an infected pilonidal sinus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The first group, receiving treatment of excision and open granulation, experienced the following outcomes: average length of hospital stay, four days; average healing time; 72 days; average number of post-operative ambulatory visits, 40; average off-work delay, 38 days; and average follow-up time, 43 months. There were five recurrences (6%) in this group during the follow-up period. For the second group treated by excision and primary closure, the corresponding outcome measurements were as follows: average length of hospital stay, four days; average healing time, 23 days; primary healing failure rate, 9%; average number of post-operative ambulatory visits, 6; average off-work delay, 21 days. The average follow-up time was 34 months, and two recurrences (6%) were observed during the follow-up period. In the third group, seventeen patients benefited from an incision and drainage as unique treatment. The mean follow-up was 37 months. Five recurrences (29%) were noticed, requiring a new operation in all the cases.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>This series of 141 patients is too limited to permit final conclusions to be drawn concerning significant advantages of one form of treatment compared to the other. Nevertheless, primary closure offers the advantages of quicker healing time, fewer post-operative visits and shorter time off work. When a primary closure can be carried out, it should be routinely considered for socioeconomical and comfort reasons.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79425,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Swiss surgery = Schweizer Chirurgie = Chirurgie suisse = Chirurgia svizzera\",\"volume\":\"8 6\",\"pages\":\"255-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"53\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Swiss surgery = Schweizer Chirurgie = Chirurgie suisse = Chirurgia svizzera\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1024/1023-9332.8.6.255\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Swiss surgery = Schweizer Chirurgie = Chirurgie suisse = Chirurgia svizzera","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1024/1023-9332.8.6.255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 53

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是评估切除和开放肉芽肿与切除和初步关闭作为治疗毛毛窦的方法。对象和方法:我们评估了1991年至1995年间141例手术治疗的患者。作为一种独特的治疗感染的毛毛窦的方法,90例患者采用切除和开放肉芽肿,34例患者采用切除和初步闭合,17例患者采用切口和引流。结果:第一组患者接受手术切除开肉芽处理,平均住院时间为4天;平均愈合时间;72天;术后平均门诊次数40次;平均下班延误,38天;平均随访时间为43个月。随访期间,本组有5例复发(6%)。第二组接受切除和初步闭合治疗,相应的结果测量如下:平均住院时间,4天;平均愈合时间23天;初次愈合失败率9%;术后平均门诊次数6次;平均下班延迟21天。平均随访34个月,随访期间2例复发(6%)。在第三组中,17例患者受益于切口引流作为独特的治疗方法。平均随访37个月。5例复发(29%),均需行新手术。讨论和结论:这一系列141例患者太有限,无法得出关于一种治疗形式相对于另一种治疗形式的显著优势的最终结论。尽管如此,初级缝合的优点是愈合时间更快,术后就诊次数更少,工作时间更短。当可以进行初级关闭时,应出于社会经济和舒适的原因进行常规考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pilonidal sinus: how to choose between excision and open granulation versus excision and primary closure? Study of a series of 141 patients operated on from 1991 to 1995.

Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate excision and open granulation versus excision and primary closure as treatments for pilonidal sinus.

Subjects and methods: We evaluated a group of 141 patients operated on for a pilonidal sinus between 1991 and 1995. Ninety patients were treated by excision and open granulation, 34 patients by excision and primary closure and 17 patients by incision and drainage, as a unique treatment of an infected pilonidal sinus.

Results: The first group, receiving treatment of excision and open granulation, experienced the following outcomes: average length of hospital stay, four days; average healing time; 72 days; average number of post-operative ambulatory visits, 40; average off-work delay, 38 days; and average follow-up time, 43 months. There were five recurrences (6%) in this group during the follow-up period. For the second group treated by excision and primary closure, the corresponding outcome measurements were as follows: average length of hospital stay, four days; average healing time, 23 days; primary healing failure rate, 9%; average number of post-operative ambulatory visits, 6; average off-work delay, 21 days. The average follow-up time was 34 months, and two recurrences (6%) were observed during the follow-up period. In the third group, seventeen patients benefited from an incision and drainage as unique treatment. The mean follow-up was 37 months. Five recurrences (29%) were noticed, requiring a new operation in all the cases.

Discussion and conclusion: This series of 141 patients is too limited to permit final conclusions to be drawn concerning significant advantages of one form of treatment compared to the other. Nevertheless, primary closure offers the advantages of quicker healing time, fewer post-operative visits and shorter time off work. When a primary closure can be carried out, it should be routinely considered for socioeconomical and comfort reasons.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信