Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness, recurrence, and complication rates of different surgical methods used in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease.

Methods: A total of 49 patients who underwent elective surgery between September 2023 and September 2024 were retrospectively evaluated. Surgical techniques included unroofing, liquid phenol application, Limberg flap, and primary closure. The primary endpoint was recurrence; the secondary endpoint was complication rate.

Results: Of the 49 patients, 41 were male and 8 were female. The most commonly performed procedure was unroofing (51.1%). The overall complication rate was 8.4% and recurrence rate was 4.2%. There was no statistically significant difference between surgical methods in terms of recurrence or complications (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Each surgical method may be effective for selected patient groups. Treatment should be individualized based on patient characteristics and surgeon experience. Larger-scale studies with longer follow-up are needed.

Keywords: Pilonidal disease, recurrence, complications, Limberg flap, unroofing, phenol treatment

License

Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to Cite

1.
Uç C. Pilonidal disease management results. J Trends Med Invest. 2025;1(2):45-8. https://doi.org/10.64512/JTMI.2025.9

References

  1. da Silva JH. Pilonidal cyst: cause and treatment. Dis Colon Rectum. 2000;43(8):1146-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236564 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02236564
  2. Bascom J. Pilonidal disease: origin from follicles of hairs and results of follicle removal as treatment. Surgery. 1980;87(5):567-72.
  3. Karydakis GE. Easy and successful treatment of pilonidal sinus after explanation of its causative process. Aust N Z J Surg. 1992;62(5):385-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1992.tb07208.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1992.tb07208.x
  4. Tam A, Steen CJ, Chua J, Yap RJ. Pilonidal sinus: an overview of historical and current management modalities. Updates Surg. 2024;76(3):803-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-024-01799-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-024-01799-2
  5. Kepenekci I, Demirkan A, Celasin H, Gecim IE. Unroofing and curettage for the treatment of acute and chronic pilonidal disease. World J Surg. 2010;34(1):153-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0245-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0245-6
  6. Olcucuoglu E, Şahin A. Unroofing curettage for treatment of simple and complex sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2022;103(4):244-51. https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2022.103.4.244 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2022.103.4.244
  7. Koc MA, Celasin H, Sunter K, Akyol C, Gecim IE. Unroofing and curettage for recurrent sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease. Front Surg. 2024;11:1456846. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1456846 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1456846
  8. Sahin A, Simsek G, Arslan K. Unroofing curettage versus modified limberg flap in pilonidal disease: a retrospective cohort study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2022;65(10):1241-50. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000002227 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000002227
  9. Şahin AG, Alçı E. Use of the laser in the pilonidal sinus alone or in combination with phenol. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2023;69(12):e20230740. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20230740 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20230740
  10. Gan XX, Liu P, Chen SH, et al. A meta-analysis comparing phenol treatment with surgical excision for pilonidal sinus. Asian J Surg. 2024;47(1):8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.06.111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.06.111
  11. Gil LA, Deans KJ, Minneci PC. Management of pilonidal disease: a review. JAMA Surg. 2023;158(8):875-83. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2023.0373 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2023.0373