Endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease (SPD) is a common surgical condition for which a multitude of surgical treatments have been described. The present review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel endoscopic procedure for the treatment of SPD.
An organized literature search was conducted. Electronic databases including PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched for articles that assessed the endoscopic treatment for SPD. The main outcome parameters were failure of the technique including persistence and recurrence of SPD, postoperative complications and pain, time to complete healing, and time to return to work.
Nine studies with a total of 497 patients were included. Mean age of patients was 24.8 years. Mean operation time was 34.7 min. The procedure was performed as day-case surgery in all studies. The mean Visual analogue score of pain within the first week was 1.35. Failure of the technique was recorded in 40 (8.04%) patients, 20 (4.02%) had persistent SPD and 20 (4.02%) developed recurrence. The weighted mean failure rate of the technique was 6.3% (95% CI 3.6–9.1). Mean weighted complication rate was 1.1% (95% CI 0.3–2.4). Mean time to complete healing was 32.9 days and mean time to return to work was 2.9 days.
The endoscopic treatment of pilonidal sinus is a promising and safe method of treatment of SPD. The main advantages of the endoscopic treatment as compared to conventional surgery are the minimal postoperative pain, quick healing, and short time to return to work and daily activities.
KeywordsPilonidal sinus Endoscopic Treatment Pilonidal disease Review Meta-analysis
SHE and MS designed the study. SHE, HE, MS, and AS participated in data collection and analysis, writing and drafting of the manuscript. VG and PS participated in data interpretation, drafting and critical revision of the manuscript. SDW reviewed the collected results on regular basis and participated in drafting and critical revision of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Steven D. Wexner, M.D. is a paid consultant and receives royalties from Karl Storz Endoscopy, America. Sameh Emile, Hossam Elfeki, Mostafa Shalaby, Ahmad Sakr, Valentina Giaccaglia, and Pierpaolo Sileri have no conflict of interests or financial ties to disclose.
- 10.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 11.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE clinical guidelines, appendix 4 quality of case series form. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/Appendix_04_qualityofcase_series_form_preop.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
- 12.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Guidelines, methodology checklist 3. http://www.sign.ac.uk/checklists-and-notes.html. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
- 20.Milone M, Musella M, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Bifulco G, Salvatore G, Sosa Fernandez LM, Bianco P, Zizolfi B, Nappi C, Milone F (2014) Video-assisted ablation of pilonidal sinus: a new minimally invasive treatment: a pilot study. Surgery 155(3):562–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2013.08.021.24300343 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar