Cihan Alper, Mentes B B, Tatlicioglu E, Ozmen S, Leventoglu S, Ucan B H
Department of Surgery, Zonguldak Karaelmas University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey.
ANZ J Surg. 2004 Apr;74(4):238-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2004.02951.x.
The present study analyses the results of wide excision with primary closure (PC), wide excision with classical Limberg flap reconstruction (LF) and wide excision with modified Limberg flap reconstruction (MLF) in the surgical treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease.
One hundred and sixty-two well-documented patients who were operated on for pilonidal disease and followed for more than 1 year were analysed retrospectively. Group 1 was composed of patients with excision plus PC (n = 78) while group 2 included those with excision plus a LF reconstruction (n = 40), and group 3 included those with excision plus a MLF reconstruction (n = 44).
There were no significant differences among the three groups with respect to age, sex distribution, frequency of recurrent disease, or follow-up periods (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). Significant disadvantages regarding postoperative infection rate, mobilization time, discharge from hospital, and time off work were noted for primary closure, compared with both LF and MLF reconstructions. Following a median follow-up period of 4.2 years, 14 recurrences (17.9%) developed in the PC group, three (7.5%) in the LF group, and none (0%) in the MLF group. The zero recurrence rate in the MLF group was significantly lower than that in the PC group (P = 0.003). On the other hand, the recurrence rate in the LF was not found to differ significantly from that in the PC group (P = 0.126). Comparing the LF and MLF groups, none of the surgical end points reached a statistically significant difference (P > 0.05 for all comparisons).
For the surgical treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease, excision plus a classical or modified Limberg flap reconstruction proved to be superior to excision plus primary closure in terms of infection, mobilization time, discharge from hospital and time off work. Additionally, MLF reconstruction resulted in a statistically lower recurrence rate when compared with PC.
本研究分析了在骶尾部藏毛疾病手术治疗中,一期缝合广泛切除(PC)、经典Limberg皮瓣重建广泛切除(LF)及改良Limberg皮瓣重建广泛切除(MLF)的结果。
对162例有详细记录且因藏毛疾病接受手术并随访超过1年的患者进行回顾性分析。第1组由接受切除加一期缝合的患者组成(n = 78),第2组包括接受切除加Limberg皮瓣重建的患者(n = 40),第3组包括接受切除加改良Limberg皮瓣重建的患者(n = 44)。
三组在年龄、性别分布、疾病复发频率或随访时间方面无显著差异(所有比较P>0.05)。与Limberg皮瓣重建和改良Limberg皮瓣重建相比,一期缝合在术后感染率、活动时间、出院时间和误工时间方面存在显著劣势。中位随访4.2年后,一期缝合组出现14例复发(17.9%),Limberg皮瓣重建组出现3例(7.5%),改良Limberg皮瓣重建组无复发(0%)。改良Limberg皮瓣重建组的零复发率显著低于一期缝合组(P = 0.003)。另一方面,Limberg皮瓣重建组的复发率与一期缝合组相比无显著差异(P = 0.126)。比较Limberg皮瓣重建组和改良Limberg皮瓣重建组,所有手术终点均未达到统计学显著差异(所有比较P>0.05)。
对于骶尾部藏毛疾病的手术治疗,在感染、活动时间、出院时间和误工时间方面,切除加经典或改良Limberg皮瓣重建优于切除加一期缝合。此外,与一期缝合相比,改良Limberg皮瓣重建的复发率在统计学上更低。