ArticleCureus2023
Revision of the Failed Cleft Lift for Pilonidal Disease.
Article in Cureus, 2023. 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.
- Future of pilonidal cyst surgery: a comparative review of traditional and laser techniques.BMC surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cleft lift has been demonstrated to be one of the most successful operations for the treatment of pilonidal disease, however, there are times this procedure fails and further surgery is necessary. This article describes a reproducible and successful technique for the revision of a failed cleft lift. This procedure was performed on 76 consecutive patients who had previous cleft lift procedures. Failures were manifested by either a wound, sinus, abscess, dehiscence or fragile scar. The revision flattened the lower gluteal cleft with a rotation and advancement flap that placed the skin incision off-midline. Follow-up over the 10 years of this series was between six and 124 months with an average of 36 months. The revision was initially successful in 96.1% of patients; if the procedure was unsuccessful a repeat revision was subsequently curative. This procedure is proposed as an essential part of the treatment algorithm for patients with recurrent pilonidal disease after a cleft lift operation.
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.