American journal of surgery · 2010
Randomized comparison of Limberg flap versus modified primary closure for the treatment of pilonidal disease.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Muzi Marco Gallinella, Milito Giovanni, Cadeddu Federica, Nigro Casimiro, Andreoli Federica, Amabile Dalia, Farinon Attilio Maria
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The best surgical technique for sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease is still controversial. The aim of this randomized prospective trial was to compare both the results of Limberg flap procedure and primary closure.
METHODS: A total of 260 patients with sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease were assigned randomly to undergo Limberg flap procedure or tension-free primary closure.
RESULTS: Success of surgery was achieved in 84.62% of Limberg flap patients versus 77.69% of primary closure (P = .0793). Surgical time for primary closure was shorter. Wound infection was more frequent in the primary closure group (P = .0254), which experienced less postoperative pain (P < .0001). No significant difference was found in time off from work (P = .672) and wound dehiscence. Recurrence was observed in 3.84% versus 0% in the primary closure versus Limberg flap group (P = .153).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not show a clear benefit for surgical management by Limberg flap or primary closure. Limberg flap showed less convalescence and wound infection; our technique of tension-free primary closure was a day case procedure, less painful, and shorter than Limberg flap.
METHODS: A total of 260 patients with sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease were assigned randomly to undergo Limberg flap procedure or tension-free primary closure.
RESULTS: Success of surgery was achieved in 84.62% of Limberg flap patients versus 77.69% of primary closure (P = .0793). Surgical time for primary closure was shorter. Wound infection was more frequent in the primary closure group (P = .0254), which experienced less postoperative pain (P < .0001). No significant difference was found in time off from work (P = .672) and wound dehiscence. Recurrence was observed in 3.84% versus 0% in the primary closure versus Limberg flap group (P = .153).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not show a clear benefit for surgical management by Limberg flap or primary closure. Limberg flap showed less convalescence and wound infection; our technique of tension-free primary closure was a day case procedure, less painful, and shorter than Limberg flap.