Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2022
RADICAL VERSUS CONSERVATIVE METHODS IN ONE-STAGE PILONIDAL ABSCESS SURGERY: THE EXPERIENCE OF A TUNISIAN CENTER.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Mahjoubi Mohamed Fares, Ben-Latifa Mehdi, Karoui Yasser, Rezgui Bochra, Ben-Belaid Amel, Essid Nada, Ben-Ali Ali, Ben-Moussa Mounir
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment for pilonidal abscess is the gold standard, but not yet well codified. Different techniques proposed can be conservative or radical.
AIMS: The aim of our study was to compare postoperative outcomes of both methods in one-stage treatment strategy.
METHODS: This is a comparative study including patients operated on for pilonidal abscess, with a satisfactory postoperative follow-up, over a period of 4 years. We looked for the occurrence of postoperative recurrence in the medical records or by interviewing reachable patients.
RESULTS: We analyzed 57 patients: 33 males and 24 females. The mean age was 26.9±10 years. The type of operation was excision in 46 (81%) cases and incision in 11 (19%) cases associated with curettage in three cases and drainage in 1 case. There was no statistically significant relationship between the type of surgery and the occurrence of postoperative surgical complications (p=1) and hospital stay (p=0.4). Excision of pilonidal abscess was significantly associated with a longer time to return to activity (p=0.04). Conservative surgery was significantly associated with faster healing of the surgical wound (p<0.001). The recurrence rate was 19% in radical surgery and 54% in conservative surgery. Radical surgery was significantly associated with a lower recurrence rate than incision procedure (p=0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Excision of pilonidal abscess was the common technique in our series, with a significantly lower rate of recurrence of the disease than after incision. However, the long convalescence following excision and the longer operating time, particularly in an emergency context, may sometimes lead to choosing conservative surgery.
AIMS: The aim of our study was to compare postoperative outcomes of both methods in one-stage treatment strategy.
METHODS: This is a comparative study including patients operated on for pilonidal abscess, with a satisfactory postoperative follow-up, over a period of 4 years. We looked for the occurrence of postoperative recurrence in the medical records or by interviewing reachable patients.
RESULTS: We analyzed 57 patients: 33 males and 24 females. The mean age was 26.9±10 years. The type of operation was excision in 46 (81%) cases and incision in 11 (19%) cases associated with curettage in three cases and drainage in 1 case. There was no statistically significant relationship between the type of surgery and the occurrence of postoperative surgical complications (p=1) and hospital stay (p=0.4). Excision of pilonidal abscess was significantly associated with a longer time to return to activity (p=0.04). Conservative surgery was significantly associated with faster healing of the surgical wound (p<0.001). The recurrence rate was 19% in radical surgery and 54% in conservative surgery. Radical surgery was significantly associated with a lower recurrence rate than incision procedure (p=0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Excision of pilonidal abscess was the common technique in our series, with a significantly lower rate of recurrence of the disease than after incision. However, the long convalescence following excision and the longer operating time, particularly in an emergency context, may sometimes lead to choosing conservative surgery.