ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2022
Endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment vs. laser-assisted endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment: short-term results from a retrospective case-matched study.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of sinus laser associated closure (SiLaC) versus endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSiT) in the management of pilonidal sinus disease.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Is it beneficial to add laser ablation to curettage in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease?Lasers in medical science · 2025Trial
- Laser-assisted endoscopic treatment of pilonidal sinus disease in children: a first pediatric series.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Does laser treatment affect outcome in pilonidal sinus disease? Long-term multicenter retrospective analysis of pit-picking alone vs. pit-picking with laser.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Sinus laser-assisted closure for pilonidal sinus disease: a prospective single-center study.Annals of coloproctology · 2026Article
- Future of pilonidal cyst surgery: a comparative review of traditional and laser techniques.BMC surgery · 2025Review
- The application of EPSiT in pilonidal sinus disease: an international Delphi consensus study endorsed by the Association of Laparoscopic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ALSGBI).Techniques in coloproctology · 2025Review
- Pilonidal sinus: an overview of historical and current management modalities.Updates in surgery · 2024Review
- Short- and mid-term results of diode laser treatment in pilonidal sinus disease and the role of endoscopic camera use on outcomes.Techniques in coloproctology · 2023Article
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate whether the addition of laser to the endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSIT), laser-assisted EPSIT (LEPSIT) has an effect on the method and clinical results in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD).
methodsBetween September 2019 and September 2020, patients who underwent LEPSIT and EPSIT procedures for PSD at Bursa Medicana Hospital, Turkey, were matched for age, pit location and number, body mass index (BMI), and sex. The primary endpoint was complete wound healing and the secondary endpoints were quality of life, cosmetic results, and cost.
resultsTwenty-four LEPSIT patients were matched to 72 EPSIT patients. Eighty-one (84.4%) of the included patients were male, and the median age was 26 years (range 16-52 years). The median follow-up time was 9 months (range 3-15 months).Wound healing rates (LEPSIT; 95.8% vs. EPSIT; 93%; p = 0.99) were similar in both groups. In patients who underwent LEPSIT, the operative time (p = 0.00086) was significantly shorter, time taken to return to work (p = 0.03572) and wound closure (p < 0.00001) were significantly less. However, the time taken to return to daily activities and the percentage of wound complications were similar in both groups. The pain scores on postoperative -days 1 7, and 14 were significantly higher after EPSIT (p = 0.0083, p = 0.00054, and p = 0.0479, respectively). The postoperative analgesic requirement was significantly higher after EPSIT (p = 0.01492). The total hospital cost was significantly less in patients who underwent EPSIT (p < 0.00001). Significantly better cosmetic improvement was observed in LEPSIT procedure (p = 0.00694). First month quality of life (evaluated with the Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire) was similar except for bodily pain (better after LEPSIT).
conclusionsThe success rates of LEPSIT and EPSIT are similar. LEPSIT results in better wound healing and patient comfort, and a shorter time to return to work.
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.