Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38488204›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of surgery2024

Real-world practice and outcomes in pilonidal surgery: Pilonidal Sinus Treatment Studying The Options (PITSTOP) cohort.

Steven R Brown, Daniel Hind, Emily Strong, Mike Bradburn, Farhat Din, Ellen Lee, Jon Lund, Christine Moffatt, Jonathan Morton, Asha Senapati and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
16.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Lived experience of pilonidal sinus disease: Systematic review and meta-ethnography.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Patient-centred treatment failure and secondary prevention after Bascom I for pilonidal sinus disease.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. The validation of a simple and instrument-free technique to measure the depth of the natal cleft (a cohort study).Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Time trends in incidence of pilonidal sinus disease from 1996 to 2021: A Danish population-based cohort study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Article
  17. Decision regret following surgical management of pilonidal disease.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Article
  18. Research and practice priorities in pilonidal sinus disease: a consensus from the PITSTOP study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Article
  19. Pilonidal reality calls for action.The British journal of surgery · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Steven R BrownSheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0980-2793
Daniel HindSheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Emily StrongSheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Mike BradburnSheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Farhat DinAcademic Coloproctology, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK.
Ellen LeeSheffield Clinical Trials Research Unit, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Jon LundDepartment of Surgery, Derby Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton, Derby, UK.
Christine MoffattInstitute of Care Excellence, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Jonathan MortonDepartment of Surgery, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0544-5474
Asha SenapatiDepartment of Surgery, St Mark's Hospital, London, UK.
Helen JonesDepartment of Surgery, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Matthew J LeeDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9971-1635
PITSTOP Management Group
University of Sheffield · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBQueen Alexandra Hospital · GBRoyal Derby Hospital · GBWestern General Hospital · GB

Funding

research HTA 17/17/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous surgical approaches exist for the treatment of pilonidal disease. Current literature on treatment is of poor quality, limiting the ability to define optimal intervention. The aim of this study was to provide real-world data on current surgical practice and report patient and risk-adjusted outcomes, informing future trial design.

methodsThis UK-wide multicentre prospective cohort study, including patients (aged over 16 years) who had definitive treatment for symptomatic pilonidal disease, was conducted between May 2019 and March 2022. Patient and disease characteristics, and intervention details were analysed. Data on patient-reported outcomes, including pain, complications, treatment failure, wound issues, and quality of life, were gathered at various time points up to 6 months after surgery. Strategies were implemented to adjust for risk influencing different treatment choices and outcomes.

resultsOf the 667 participants consenting, 574 (86.1%) were followed up to the study end. Twelve interventions were observed. Broadly, 59.5% underwent major excisional surgery and 40.5% minimally invasive surgery. Complications occurred in 45.1% of the cohort. Those who had minimally invasive procedures had better quality of life and, after risk adjustment, less pain (score on day 1: mean difference 1.58, 95% c.i. 1.14 to 2.01), fewer complications (difference 17.5 (95% c.i. 9.1 to 25.9)%), more rapid return to normal activities (mean difference 25.9 (18.4 to 33.4) days) but a rate of higher treatment failure (difference 9.6 (95% c.i. 17.3 to 1.9)%). At study end, 25% reported an unhealed wound and 10% had not returned to normal activities.

conclusionThe burden after surgery for pilonidal disease is high and treatment failure is common. Minimally invasive techniques may improve outcomes at the expense of a 10% higher risk of treatment failure.

Indexed as

Pilonidal SinusAgedHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPainProspective StudiesQuality of LifeRecurrenceTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID38488204
PMCPMC10941257
OpenAlexW4392850172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.