ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2024
Pediatric endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment: lessons learned after 100 consecutive cases.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic treatment versus open excision for pediatric pilonidal disease: technical description of a modified (P)EPSiT approach using standard equipment and retrospective cohort study.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Pilonidal Sinus: Open Surgery or PEPSiT? Our Preliminary Experience in Adolescents.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pediatric Pilonidal Disease Surgical Approach (PPiDSA) Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Practice patterns of paediatric surgeons on treating pilonidal sinus disease - a national survey study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimPediatric endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (PEPSiT) has favorable short-term-outcomes, but there is a lack of reliable data on medium and long-term follow-up. The objective of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness and advantages of PEPSiT versus conventional surgery of pilonidal sinus in the pediatric population.
methodsA quasi-experimental study was carried out in pediatric patients undergoing pilonidal sinus surgery at a single institution from 2019 to 2022. Excision and healing by secondary intention (EHSI), excision and primary closure (EPC), and PEPSiT were compared. The surgical technique chosen was surgeon-dependent.
resultsIn total, 149 patients were studied-100 undergoing PEPSiT, 28 undergoing EHSI, and 21 undergoing EPC. Median full healing process was 4 weeks [interquartile range (IQR): 3-8] in PEPSiT, 16 weeks in EHSI (IQR: 12-26.5), and 7 weeks (IQR: 4-10) in ECP (p < 0.01). Pain on the visual analogue scale (VAS) and need for analgesics were lower in the PEPSiT group (p < 0.01). Mean time to return to normal life was shorter with PEPSiT-177 days earlier than EHSI (95% CI 124.7-230.2; p < 0,01) and 7.2 days earlier tan EPC (95% CI 20.2-138.6; p < 0,009). Complications with PEPSiT were 9.3 times lower tan EHSI [odds ratio (OR) 9.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5-24.7] and 8.5 times lower than ECP (OR = 8.5; 95% CI 2.9-24.4). EHSI had 5.3 times more probability of recurrence than PEPSiT (OR = 5.3; 95% CI 1.3-22.7), and ECP 15.2 times more (OR = 15.2; 95% CI 3.2-71.7).
conclusionsEndoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment is effective in medium-term follow-up, with fewer complications than classic techniques. It allows for an early return to normal life without restrictions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39656288What 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.