ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2020
Sinusectomy and primary closure versus excision and primary closure in pilonidal sinus disease: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2020. 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.
- Karydakis Versus Limberg Flap in Primary Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Sinus: A Retrospective Comparative Study of Functional Recovery.World journal of surgery · 2026Observational
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
backgroundVarious surgical procedures are available for the treatment of pilonidal sinus diseases (PSD), but the best surgical approach remains controversial. Minimally invasive surgical procedures are more popular than surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of sinusectomy with primary closure (SPC) in comparison with excision and primary closure (EPC) in primary or recurrent cases. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted with two cohort groups in which 351 patients with PSD underwent either SPC or EPC. The two procedures were compared according to the presence of short-term complications and recurrence of PSD.
resultsOf the patients, 134 underwent EPC and 217 underwent SPC. The length of stay and the wound healing time were significantly longer in the EPC group than in the SPC group. The occurrence rates of wound site infection and abscess were significantly higher in the EPC group than in the SPC group; however, seroma was statistically significantly more common in the SPC group than in the EPC group. The recurrence rates were 18.7% and 5.5% in the EPC and SPC groups, respectively.
conclusionSPC is an efficient procedure for the treatment of patients with PSD showing simple and complicated disease patterns.
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.