Surgery today · 2013
Comparison of the Limberg flap and bilateral gluteus maximus advancing flap following oblique excision for the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yildar Murat, Cavdar Faruk
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study was performed to compare the use of a bilateral gluteus maximus advancing flap (BGMAF) following oblique incision, which was recently described for the surgical treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus (SPS) disease, with the widely used Limberg flap (LF) technique following a rhomboid incision.
METHODS: A total of 105 patients treated for SPS were evaluated retrospectively. The patients were evaluated in terms of their age, body mass index, symptoms, length of the operation, complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to return to work, postoperative cosmetic satisfaction and recurrence rate.
RESULTS: Fifty-six of the patients were treated with BGMAF, while 49 were treated with LF. The mean follow-up was 20.5 ± 5.4 months. The mean length of the operation, hospital stay and time to return to work were shorter, while the cosmetic satisfaction score was higher in the BGMAF group compared to the LF group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for the other criteria.
CONCLUSION: The BGMAF appears to be superior to the LF in terms of the length of the operation, time to return to work and degree of cosmetic satisfaction. It is preferable for sinuses not to require wide excision, while the LF is more appropriate for sinuses with a large post-excision defect.
METHODS: A total of 105 patients treated for SPS were evaluated retrospectively. The patients were evaluated in terms of their age, body mass index, symptoms, length of the operation, complications, postoperative hospital stay, time to return to work, postoperative cosmetic satisfaction and recurrence rate.
RESULTS: Fifty-six of the patients were treated with BGMAF, while 49 were treated with LF. The mean follow-up was 20.5 ± 5.4 months. The mean length of the operation, hospital stay and time to return to work were shorter, while the cosmetic satisfaction score was higher in the BGMAF group compared to the LF group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for the other criteria.
CONCLUSION: The BGMAF appears to be superior to the LF in terms of the length of the operation, time to return to work and degree of cosmetic satisfaction. It is preferable for sinuses not to require wide excision, while the LF is more appropriate for sinuses with a large post-excision defect.