COMPARISON PRIMARY CLOSURE AND OPEN TECHNIQUE IN THE TREATMENT OF PILONIDAL SINUS SURGERY IN MTI-LADY READING HOSPITAL PESHAWAR

. WAJID; H KHAN; S JABEEN; A AKBAR; JR MASOOD; W SHAUKAT

doi:10.54112/pjicm.v4i02.38

Authors

. WAJID Department of General Surgery, MTI-Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar, Pakistan
H KHAN Vascular Surgery, Combined Military Hospital Peshawar KPK, Pakistan
S JABEEN Department of General Surgery, MTI-Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar, Pakistan
A AKBAR Department of General Surgery, MTI-Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar, Pakistan
JR MASOOD Surgical A, Saidu Group of Teaching Hospitals, Swat, Pakistan
W SHAUKAT Department of General Surgery, University Hospital Birmingham, UK

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/pjicm.v4i02.38

Keywords:

Pilonidal Sinus, Primary Closure, Open Technique, Wound Healing, Recurrence, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Abstract

Background: Pilonidal sinus disease is a common condition that requires surgical intervention, with primary closure and open techniques being the two main approaches. While both methods aim to manage the disease and promote healing, they differ regarding postoperative recovery, complication rates, and overall outcomes. In many cases, primary closure offers benefits in terms of reduced recovery time and fewer complications, but the comparison between these two techniques remains underexplored in specific settings. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of primary closure and open techniques in the surgical management of pilonidal sinus. Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of primary closure and open techniques in the surgical management of pilonidal sinus, focusing on wound healing time, hospitalisation duration, return to work, and postoperative complications. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial. Settings: The study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital. Duration of Study: April 2024 to November 2024 Methods: A total of 60 patients with pilonidal sinus were randomly assigned into two equal groups. Group A underwent excision with primary closure, while Group B underwent excision with the wound left open to heal by secondary intention. Primary outcomes included hospitalization duration, wound healing time, and time to return to work. Secondary outcomes included complications such as wound infection and recurrence. Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate tests, including t-tests and chi-square tests, with p-values ≤ 0.05 considered significant. Results: Group A (primary closure) demonstrated significantly shorter hospitalization (4.37 ± 0.999 vs. 5.80 ± 1.27 days, p < 0.0001), faster wound healing (17.57 ± 1.72 vs. 44.73 ± 3.34 days, p < 0.0001), and earlier return to work (13.60 ± 2.47 vs. 30.43 ± 2.86 days, p < 0.0001) compared to Group B (open technique). Wound infection rates were lower in Group A (6.7%) compared to Group B (23.3%), with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.01). Recurrence rates were also lower in Group A (10.0%) compared to Group B (30.0%). Conclusion: Primary closure is more effective than the open technique in the surgical management of pilonidal sinus, offering faster recovery times, fewer complications, and better overall patient outcomes. When performed appropriately, this technique should be considered the preferred approach for pilonidal sinus surgery.

References

Mahmood F, Hussain A, Akingboye A. Pilonidal sinus disease: review of current practice and prospects for endoscopic treatment. Ann Med Surg. 2020;57:212-7.

Iesalnieks I, Ommer A. The management of pilonidal sinus. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2019;116(1-2):12.

Can MF, Sevinc MM, Yilmaz M. Comparison of Karydakis flap reconstruction versus primary midline closure in sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease: results of 200 military service members. Surg Today, 2009; 39(7):580-6.

Kosaka M, Kida M, Mori H, Kamiishi H. Pilonidal cyst of the scalp due to single minor trauma. Dermatol Surg. 2007; 33(4):505-7.

McCallum I, King PM, Bruce J. Healing by primary versus secondary intention after surgical treatment for pilonidal sinus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007(4): CD006213.

Jamil MA, Anwar MI, Saleem MW, Tahir SA, Javaid HA. Comparison of two Different Surgical Modalities in the treatment of Pilonidal Sinus (Primary Closure and Open Technique). Pak J Med Health Sci. 2021;15(11):2999-3001.

Anandaravi BN, Viswanathan A. Comparative study between excision with lay open and excision with primary closure in treatment of pilonidal sinus. Int Surg J. 2019;6(4):1242-6.

A Mansour M, A Bahbah M, Mohammed Zain A, A El-Begawy M. Pilonidal Sinusectomy and Primary Closure Versus Excision and Primary Closure in Pilonidal Sinus Disease. Benha Med J. 2024.

Keshava A, Young CJ, Rickard MJ FX, Sinclair G. Karydakis flap repair for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease: How important is technique? ANZ J Surg 2007;77 (3):181-3.

Ekici U, Kanlıöz M, Ferhatoğlu MF, Kartal A. A comparative analysis of four different surgical methods for treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus. Asian J Surg. 2019;42(10):907-13.

Wu P, Zhang Y, Zhang Y, Wang S, Fan Z. Progress in the surgical treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus: a review. Int J Surg 2023;109(8):2388-403.

Shah STA, Tahir M, Nasir M, Paracha SA, Wahab K. Outcome of open versus closed technique for surgical treatment of chronic pilonidal sinus: A randomized controlled trial. Khyber Med Univ J. 2013;5(3):146–51.

McCallum IJ, King PM, Bruce J. Healing by primary closure versus open healing after surgery for pilonidal sinus: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008; 336(7649):868-71.

Pfammatter M, Erlanger TE, Mayr J. Primary Transverse Closure Compared to Open Wound Treatment for Primary Pilonidal Sinus Disease in Children. Children (Basel). 2020 Oct 17;7(10):187.