SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Surgery / 2018 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of limberg flap and oval flap techniques in sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease surgery

Banu KARAPOLAT
Sercan BÜYÜKAKINCAK
Eray KURNAZ
Uzer KÜÇÜKTULU
Pages
311–314
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Flap necrosis was not observed in any of the patients.Conclusion: The Limberg flap and oval flap procedures both involve minimum morbidity and short hospital staybecause they were not superior to one another regarding treatment effectiveness, complications, and recurrence inthe pilonidal sinus surgery.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Although many surgical techniques have been described for treatment of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD),the ideal treatment method remains controversial.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of this study was to compare Limberg flap and ovalflap techniques in patients with PSD.Material and Methods: Patients diagnosed with PSD who underwent surgery using either the Limberg flap or ovalflap technique between January 2012 and January 2016 at the general surgery outpatient clinic were retrospectivelyreviewed from the database of our hospital; 142 patients (124 males and 18 females) were invited for examination.The demographic characteristics of the patients such as age and gender, hospital stays, seroma occurrence, surgicalsite infections, wound dehiscence, flap necrosis, loss of sensation, and recurrences were evaluated based on theinformation obtained from the database and from physical examinations as well as questioning of the patients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Flap necrosis was not observed in any of the patients.Conclusion: The Limberg flap and oval flap procedures both involve minimum morbidity and short hospital staybecause they were not superior to one another regarding treatment effectiveness, complications, and recurrence inthe pilonidal sinus surgery.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: Although many surgical techniques have been described for treatment of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD),the ideal treatment method remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare Limberg flap and ovalflap techniques in patients with PSD.Material and Methods: Patients diagnosed with PSD who underwent surgery using either the Limberg flap or ovalflap technique between January 2012 and January 2016 at the general surgery outpatient clinic were retrospectivelyreviewed from the database of our hospital; 142 patients (124 males and 18 females) were invited for examination.The demographic characteristics of the patients such as age and gender, hospital stays, seroma occurrence, surgicalsite infections, wound dehiscence, flap necrosis, loss of sensation, and recurrences were evaluated based on theinformation obtained from the database and from physical examinations as well as questioning of the patients. Theresults were statistically compared, and a p value of <0.05 was considered significant.Results: The mean age of the patients was 27.5±7.8 years in the Limberg flap group and 26.5±7.2 years in the ovalflap group. No significant difference was found between the two groups regarding patients’ mean age; gender distribution; postoperative hospital stay; recurrence; and complications, such as seroma, infection, wound dehiscence,and loss of sensation. Flap necrosis was not observed in any of the patients.Conclusion: The Limberg flap and oval flap procedures both involve minimum morbidity and short hospital staybecause they were not superior to one another regarding treatment effectiveness, complications, and recurrence inthe pilonidal sinus surgery.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARAPOLAT, B., BÜYÜKAKINCAK, S., KURNAZ, E., KÜÇÜKTULU, U. (2018). Comparison of limberg flap and oval flap techniques in sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease surgery. Turkish Journal of Surgery, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 4, 311–314. https://ajindex.com/articles/376570

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Kucukkartallar T, Tekin A, Vatansev C, Aksoy F, Erenoglu B. The comparison of the results of different operation techniques for pilonidal sinus disease. Genel Tıp Der 2007; 17: 95-97.
  2. Sabuncuoglu MZ, Sabuncuoglu A, Dandin O, Benzin MF, Celik G, Sozen I, et al. Eyedrop-shaped, modified Limberg transposition flap in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease. Asian J Surg 2015; 38: 161-167. [CrossRef] Tardu A, Haslak A, Ozcınar B, Basak F. Comparison of Limberg and Dufourmentel flap in surgical treatment of pilonidal sinus disease. Ulus Cerrahi Derg 2011; 27: 35-40. [CrossRef] Aren A, Sagban AD, Gokce AH. Comparison of Limberg flap and modified Limberg flap in the surgical treatment of Pilonidal sinus. Istanbul Med J 2010; 11: 149-153.
  3. Duman K, Gırgın M, Harlak A. Prevalence of sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease in Turkey. Asian J Surg 2017; 40: 434-437. [CrossRef] Mentes O, Bagci M, Bilgin T, Ozgul O, Ozdemir M. Limberg flap procedure for pilonidal sinus disease: results of 353 patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2008; 393: 185-189. [CrossRef] Uçar AD, Cartı EB, Oymacı E, Sarı E, Yakan S, Yıldırım M, et al. Recurrent pilonidal disease surgery: Is it second primary or reoperative surgery? Ulus Cerrahi Derg 2015; 32: 162-167. Vedder N.B. Flap physiology. Mathes Plastic Surgery, 2nd edition. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier Inc, Vol: 1; 483-506, 2006.
  4. Arslan S, Karadeniz E, Ozturk G, Aydinli B, Bayraktutan MC, Atamanalp SS. Modified Primary Closure Method for the Treatment of Pilonidal Sinus. Eurasian J Med 2016; 48: 84-89. [CrossRef] Polat C, Gungor B, Karagul S, Buyukakincak S, Topgul K, Erzurumlu K. Is oval flap reconstruction a good modification for treating 314 pilonidal sinuses? Am J Surg 2011; 201: 192-196. [CrossRef]