• Am. J. Surg. · Jul 2010

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study

    Randomized comparison of Limberg flap versus modified primary closure for the treatment of pilonidal disease.

    • Marco Gallinella Muzi, Giovanni Milito, Federica Cadeddu, Casimiro Nigro, Federica Andreoli, Dalia Amabile, and Attilio Maria Farinon.
    • Department of Surgery, University Hospital Tor Vergata, Viale Oxford 81, Rome, Italy.
    • Am. J. Surg. 2010 Jul 1;200(1):9-14.

    BackgroundThe best surgical technique for sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease is still controversial. The aim of this randomized prospective trial was to compare both the results of Limberg flap procedure and primary closure.MethodsA total of 260 patients with sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease were assigned randomly to undergo Limberg flap procedure or tension-free primary closure.ResultsSuccess of surgery was achieved in 84.62% of Limberg flap patients versus 77.69% of primary closure (P = .0793). Surgical time for primary closure was shorter. Wound infection was more frequent in the primary closure group (P = .0254), which experienced less postoperative pain (P < .0001). No significant difference was found in time off from work (P = .672) and wound dehiscence. Recurrence was observed in 3.84% versus 0% in the primary closure versus Limberg flap group (P = .153).ConclusionsOur results do not show a clear benefit for surgical management by Limberg flap or primary closure. Limberg flap showed less convalescence and wound infection; our technique of tension-free primary closure was a day case procedure, less painful, and shorter than Limberg flap.Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.