SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2026
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.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundVarious surgical modalities exist for the management of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD), with an increasing trend toward minimally invasive techniques. Sinus Laser associated Closure (SiLaC) and endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSiT) are two minimally invasive techniques widely used in clinical practice. However, a systematic comparison of both techniques is lacking. This study conducted separate single-arm analyses of both techniques to compare their efficacy and safety.
objectiveA systematic literature search was performed across electronic databases including Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and PubMed to identify relevant studies investigating SiLaC versus EPSiT for PSD. The primary outcome measures included operative time, cure rate, recurrence rate, postoperative complication rate, and total wound healing time.
resultsA total of 29 studies were included. The mean operative time was 18.02 min (95% CI:13.42–22.62; I2 = 99.4%; P < 0.001) for SiLaC and 30.11 min (95% CI: 21.33–38.88; I² = 98.5%; P < 0.001) for EPSiT. The cure rate was 86% (95% CI: 80–91%; I2 =92%; P < 0.001) in the SiLaC and 88% (95% CI: 83–94%; I² = 87.1%; P < 0.001) in the EPSiT group. The pooled recurrence rate was 11% (95% CI: 6–15%; I2 = 90.4%; < 0.001) for SiLaC and 9% (95% CI: 5–12%; I² = 82.9%; P < 0.001) for EPSiT. The complication rate was 10% (95% CI: 7–14%; I2 = 79.6%; P < 0.001) for SiLaC and 7% (95% CI: 1–15%; I² = 74.7%; P < 0.05) for EPSiT. The mean total healing time was 30.08 days (95% CI: 22.73–37.43%; I2 = 99.2%; P < 0.001) for SiLaC and 26.55 days (95% CI: 24.40–28.70; I² = 90.9%; P < 0.001) for EPSiT.
conclusionThis indirect comparative analysis suggests comparable efficacy between SiLaC and EPSiT for PSD based on currently available, predominantly single-arm studies. These findings, limited by the lack of direct comparative trials, highlight the urgent need for prospective investigations to establish robust comparative effectiveness.
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.