ArticleCureus2019
Analysis of the Relapse Rates of the Primary Closure and Limberg Flap Techniques in Pilonidal Sinus Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The application of the Limberg flap repair technique in the surgical treatment of pilonidal sinus disease.International wound journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background This study aimed to assess the relapse rates at the long-term follow-up of the Limberg flap repair (LFR) and primary closure (PC) methods in the surgical treatment of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD). Methods The records of primary PSDs who underwent LFR and PC due to PSD were retrospectively examined. The study included patients whose surgical intervention was performed at least two years ago. The patients were contacted by phone to obtain information. They were asked whether they had a relapse or not, and their answers were recorded. The recording and analysis were ensured using the SPSS statistical program (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, US). The groups were compared using the chi-square test. p˂0.05 was considered significant. Results The patients' mean age was 23.68 ± 8.21 years, and their median age was 22 years. The overall follow-up period was 4.38 ± 2.12 years. LFR-treated patients numbered 292; 38 (13.01%) females and 254 (86.99%) males. Of the LFR-treated patients, 23 (7.87%) had a relapse, including five (13.15%) females and 18 (7.08%) males (p˂0.03). PC-treated patients numbered 184; 58 (31.52%) females and 126 (68.48%) males. Of PC-treated patients, 39 (21.19%) had a relapse, including 15 (25.86%) females and 24 (19.04%) males (p˂0.04). The relapse was more than three times higher in PC when compared to LFR (p˂0.01). Conclusion LFR clearly takes precedence over PC. In both methods, the relapse rate is higher in females. We believe that this is due to our tendency to be more limited in resection in women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.