Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31278458›Full record

Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2019

Short-term outcomes of radical excision vs. phenolisation of the sinus tract in primary sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease: a randomized-controlled trial.

A A Pronk, N Smakman, E J B Furnee

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04560049 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of Phenol and Silver Nitrate Application in the Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUmraniye Education and Research HospitalRan2020 to 2023Enrolled44ConditionsPilonidal Sinus of Natal Cleft, Pilonidal Sinus Without AbscessArmsSilver Nitrate, Phenol
NCT06721169 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Minimally Invasive Treatment of Pilonidal Sinus Disease: Which is Better? Phenol or Laser Ablation

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorMersin UniversityRan2024 to 2026Enrolled64ConditionsPilonidal Sinus Treatment, Pilonidal Sinus Disorder, Surgical Outcomes
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

A A PronkDepartment of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis, Bosboomstraat 1, P.O. Box 80250, 3508 TG, Utrecht, The Netherlands. apronk1@diakhuis.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0031-8014
N SmakmanDepartment of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis, Bosboomstraat 1, P.O. Box 80250, 3508 TG, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E J B FurneeDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhenolisation of Sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease (SPSD) seems to have advantages over radical excision; however, a randomized-controlled trial (RCT) comparing both techniques is lacking. The aim of our study was to compare sinus pit excision and phenolisation of the sinus tract with radical excision in SPSD in terms of return to normal daily activities.

methodsThis study was a single-center RCT. Fifty patients who presented with primary SPSD were randomized to phenolisation and 50 patients to excision. The primary endpoint was time to return to normal daily activities. Secondary endpoints were quality of life, complaints related to SPSD, surgical site infection, and wound epithelialization. Patients were treated in a 1-day surgery setting. Complaints related to SPSD were evaluated and symptoms were scored by the participants on a 6-point scale before surgery, and patients kept a diary for 2 weeks on complaints related to the surgical treatment (the same scoring system as preoperatively) and pain, evaluated with a VAS. Quality of life (QoL) was measured preoperatively with a VAS and the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36). At 2, 6, and 12 weeks after surgery, patients were evaluated using a questionnaire containing the following items: patients' satisfaction (disease, compared with preoperatively, scored as cured, improved, unchanged or worsened), five complaints related to the surgical treatment (the same scoring system as preoperatively and in the diary), QoL (VAS and SF-36), and return to normal daily activities. The wound was assessed 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively by one of the investigators (EF or NS), using an assessment form

resultsThe mean time to return to normal daily activities was significantly shorter after phenolisation (5.2 ± SD 6.6 days vs. 14.5 ± 25.0 days, p = 0.023). 2 weeks after surgery, all patients in the phenolisation group and 85.4% of patients in the excision group returned to normal daily activities (p = 0.026). Pain was significantly lower after phenolisation at 2 weeks postoperatively (0.8 ± 1.0 vs. 1.6 ± 1.3, p = 0.003). Surgical site infection occurred significantly more often after radical excision (n = 10, 21.7% vs. n = 2, 4.0%, p = 0.020). At 6 and 12 weeks, complete wound epithelialization was more frequently achieved after phenolisation (69.0% vs. 37.0%, p = 0.003 and 81.0% vs. 60.9%, p = 0.039, respectively).

conclusionsPit excision with phenolisation of SPSD resulted in a quicker return to normal daily activities, less pain, and quicker wound epithelialization compared to radical excision. Surgeons should consider phenolisation in patients with primary SPSD.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMalePatient SatisfactionPhenolPilonidal SinusSacrococcygeal RegionSclerosing SolutionsTreatment OutcomeWound HealingPhenolSclerosing SolutionsMinimally invasive surgical proceduresPhenolPilonidal sinusRandomized-controlled trial

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.