Trial reportTechniques in coloproctology2026
Comparing keystone and Limberg flaps for pilonidal sinus: Does flap choice influence patient satisfaction?
Trial report in Techniques in coloproctology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPilonidal sinus disease (PSD) is a chronic condition that mainly affects young adults impairing the quality of life. Among several surgical options, flap reconstruction offers faster healing and lower recurrence. This randomized comparative study evaluated the keystone perforator island flap (KSF) versus the Limberg flap (LF) in PSD repair, focusing primarily on patient satisfaction depending on the flap type, alongside perioperative outcomes following PS excision as secondary outcomes.
methodsA total of 50 patients with simple PSD were randomized equally to undergo KSF or LF reconstruction after sinus excision. Operative data, complications, and recovery metrics were recorded. Patient satisfaction, the primary endpoint, was assessed at 6 months using a validated 5-point scale. Statistical analysis employed the t-test, chi-squared test, and multivariate linear regression to identify independent predictors of satisfaction (p < 0.05 significant).
resultsThe KSF group showed shorter operative time (54.9 ± 3.7 versus 73.4 ± 7.9 min, p < 0.001), faster wound healing (13.5 ± 3.1 versus 17.1 ± 3.5 days, p < 0.001), and earlier return to activity (6.8 ± 0.8 versus 8.5 ± 0.8 days, p < 0.001). Complications were lower (24% versus 56%, p = 0.02). Satisfaction was significantly higher with KSF (96% versus 72%, p = 0.046). Regression analysis identified wound-healing time (p = 0.008) and return to activity (p < 0.001) as the independent predictors of satisfaction.
conclusionThe KSF provides faster recovery, better comfort, and higher patient satisfaction than the LF. Functional recovery parameters, rather than flap type alone, are the strongest determinants of postoperative satisfaction.
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.