Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2024 Jul;28(33):1–113. doi: 10.3310/KFDQ2017

Treatment options for patients with pilonidal sinus disease: PITSTOP, a mixed-methods evaluation.

Steven Brown, Daniel Hind, Emily Strong, Mike Bradburn, Farhat Vanessa Nasim Din, Ellen Lee, Matthew J Lee, Jonathan Lund, Christine Moffatt, Jonathan Morton, Asha Senapati, Philip Shackley, Peter Vaughan-Shaw, Arkadiusz Peter Wysocki, Tia Callaghan, Helen Jones, Nyantara Wickramasekera; PITSTOP Management Group
PMCID: PMC11284621  PMID: 39045854

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on optimal management of pilonidal disease. Surgical practice is varied, and existing literature is mainly single-centre cohort studies of varied disease severity, interventions and outcome assessments.

OBJECTIVES

A prospective cohort study to determine: • disease severity and intervention relationship • most valued outcomes and treatment preference by patients • recommendations for policy and future research.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study with nested mixed-methods case study. Discrete choice experiment. Clinician survey. Three-stage Delphi survey for patients and clinicians. Inter-rater reliability of classification system.

SETTING

Thirty-one National Health Service trusts.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged > 16 years referred for elective surgical treatment of pilonidal disease.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain postoperative days 1 and 7, time to healing and return to normal activities, complications, recurrence. Outcomes compared between major and minor procedures using regression modelling, propensity score-based approaches and augmented inverse probability weighting to account for measured potential confounding features.

RESULTS

Clinician survey: There was significant heterogeneity in surgeon practice preference. Limited training opportunities may impede efforts to improve practice. Cohort study: Over half of patients (60%; N = 667) had a major procedure. For these procedures, pain was greater on day 1 and day 7 (mean difference day 1 pain 1.58 points, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.01 points, n = 536; mean difference day 7 pain 1.53 points, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.95 points, n = 512). There were higher complication rates (adjusted risk difference 17.5%, 95% confidence interval 9.1 to 25.9%, n = 579), lower recurrence (adjusted risk difference -10.1%, 95% confidence interval -18.1 to -2.1%, n = 575), and longer time to healing (>34 days estimated difference) and time to return to normal activities (difference 25.9 days, 95% confidence interval 18.4 to 33.4 days). Mixed-methods analysis: Patient decision-making was influenced by prior experience of disease and anticipated recovery time. The burden involved in wound care and the gap between expected and actual time for recovery were the principal reasons given for decision regret. Discrete choice experiment: The strongest predictors of patient treatment choice were risk of infection/persistence (attribute importance 70%), and shorter recovery time (attribute importance 30%). Patients were willing to trade off these attributes. Those aged over 30 years had a higher risk tolerance (22.35-34.67%) for treatment failure if they could experience rapid recovery. There was no strong evidence that younger patients were willing to accept higher risk of treatment failure in exchange for a faster recovery. Patients were uniform in rejecting excision-and-leave-open because of the protracted nursing care it entailed. Wysocki classification analysis: There was acceptable inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.61). Consensus exercise: Five research and practice priorities were identified. The top research priority was that a comparative trial should broadly group interventions. The top practice priority was that any interventions should be less disruptive than the disease itself.

LIMITATIONS

Incomplete recruitment and follow-up data were an issue, particularly given the multiple interventions. Assumptions were made regarding risk adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Results suggest the burden of pilonidal surgery is greater than reported previously. This can be mitigated with better selection of intervention according to disease type and patient desired goals. Results indicate a framework for future higher-quality trials that stratify disease and utilise broad groupings of common interventions with development of a patient-centred core outcome set.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN95551898.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/17/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 33. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Plain language summary

Pilonidal disease is caused by ingrowing hairs between the buttocks. It can cause pain and infection and may need surgery. We do not know which operation gives the best results, or who operations help. PITSTOP aimed to find out which operation is the best and what is important to patients when deciding on surgery, and to suggest ideas for better treatment and future research. We looked at what operations were done and their outcomes. We interviewed patients about their experiences. Some completed a survey to help us understand what operations they might prefer based on risks and outcomes. Surgeons completed a survey about their experiences, and we explored whether a new tool could help us tell the difference between ‘mild’ and ‘bad’ disease. We used findings from these studies to help patients and surgeons give priorities for future practice and research. Six hundred and sixty-seven patients joined PITSTOP. People who had a major operation had more pain and took longer to return to normal activities. Some were still affected 6 months after surgery. However, disease recurrence was lower than after a minor procedure. Patients based decisions about treatment on the likelihood of success and the time to recover. The study and the surgeons’ survey both showed marked differences in practice. Surgeons tended to offer one or two operations learned during training. A classification tool put cases in similar groups, but this did not influence treatment choices. The consensus exercise identified five research priorities, the top one being to put types of surgery into two groups. Of the five practice priorities, the top one was that surgery should not make the patient worse than the disease. There is variation in the treatment of pilonidal disease. Wound issues and impact on daily living should be avoided. The highlighted research questions should be addressed to improve care.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Søndenaa K, Andersen E, Nesvik I, Søreide JA, Sondenaa K, Andersen E, et al. Patient characteristics and symptoms in chronic pilonidal sinus disease. Int J Colorectal Dis 1995;10(1):39–42. doi: 10.1007/BF00337585. [DOI] [PubMed]
  2. Hull TL, Wu J. Pilonidal disease. Surg Clin North Am 2002;82(6):1169–85. doi: 10.1016/s0039-6109(02)00062-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. Karydakis GE. Easy and successful treatment of pilonidal sinus after explanation of its causative process. Aust N Z J Surg 1992;62(5):385–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.1992.tb07208.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Ertan T, Koc M, Gocmen E, Aslar AK, Keskek M, Kilic M, et al. Does technique alter quality of life after pilonidal sinus surgery? Am J Surg 2005;190(3):388–92. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.08.068. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Jensen SL, Harling H. Prognosis after simple incision and drainage for a first-episode acute pilonidal abscess. Br J Surg 1988;75(1):60–1. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800750122. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Elsey E, Lund JN. Fibrin glue in the treatment for pilonidal sinus: high patient satisfaction and rapid return to normal activities. Tech Coloproctol 2013;17(1):101–4. doi: 10.1007/s10151-012-0956-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Patti R, Angileri M, Migliore G, Sparancello M, Termine S, Crivello F, et al. Use of fibrin glue in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease: a pilot study. G Chir 2006;27(8–9):331–4. [PubMed]
  8. Thompson MR, Senapati A, Kitchen P. Simple day-case surgery for pilonidal sinus disease. Br J Surg 2011;98(2):198–209. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7292. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Enriquez-Navascues JM, Emparanza JI, Alkorta M, Placer C. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing different techniques with primary closure for chronic pilonidal sinus. Tech Coloproctol 2014;18(10):863–72. doi: 10.1007/s10151-014-1149-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Hospital Episode Statistics. Admitted Patient Care – England 2012-13; 2013.
  11. Vermeulen H, Ubbink D, Goossens A, de Vos R, Legemate D. Dressings and topical agents for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;2004(2):CD003554. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003554.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. Price PE, Butterworth RJ, Bale S, Harding KG. Measuring quality of life in patients with granulating wounds. J Wound Care 1994;3(1):49–50. doi: 10.12968/jowc.1994.3.1.49. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Stauffer VK, Luedi MM, Kauf P, Schmid M, Diekmann M, Wieferich K, et al. Common surgical procedures in pilonidal sinus disease: a meta-analysis, merged data analysis, and comprehensive study on recurrence. Sci Rep 2018;8(1):3058. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-20143-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Brown SR, Lund JN. The evidence base for pilonidal sinus surgery is the pits. Tech Coloproctol 2019;23(12):1173–5. doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-02116-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Al-Khamis A, McCallum I, King PM, Bruce J. Healing by primary versus secondary intention after surgical treatment for pilonidal sinus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;2010(1):CD006213. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006213.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. McCallum IJD, 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. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39517.808160.BE. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. Harris CL, Holloway S. Development of an evidence-based protocol for care of pilonidal sinus wounds healing by secondary intent using a modified Reactive Delphi procedure Part 2: methodology, analysis and results. Int Wound J 2012;9(2):173–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2011.00925.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  18. Lund J, Tou S, Doleman B, Williams JP. Fibrin glue for pilonidal sinus disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;1(1):CD011923. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011923.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. Handmer M. Sticking to the facts: a systematic review of fibrin glue for pilonidal disease. ANZ J Surg 2012;82(4):221–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2011.05752.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Lund JN, Leveson SH. Fibrin glue in the treatment of pilonidal sinus: results of a pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 2005;48(5):1094–6. doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-0905-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Isik A, Eryılmaz R, Okan I, Dasiran F, Firat D, Idiz O, et al. The use of fibrin glue without surgery in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014;7(4):1047–51. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet e-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004;6(3):e34. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, CondeJG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2008;42(2):377–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O'Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019; 95:103208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019 doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  25. Ojo D, Flashman K, Thomas G, Tozer P, Senapati A. Cleft closure (Bascom’s cleft lift) for 714 patients – treatment of choice for complex and recurrent pilonidal disease (a cohort study). Colorect Dis 2023;25(9):1839–43. doi: 10.1111/codi.16688. [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Fearnhead NS, Lee MJ, Acheson AG, Worley G, Faiz OD, Brown SR. Variation in practice of pouch surgery in England – using SWORD data to cut to the chase and justify centralization. Colorect Dis 2018;20(7):597–605. doi: 10.1111/codi.14036. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. O’Connell E, McDevitt J, Hill ADK, McNamara DA, Burke JP. Centralisation of rectal cancer care has improved patient survival in the republic of Ireland. Eur J Surg Oncol 2022;48(4):890–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.10.031. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. Shabbir J, Chaudhary BN, Britton DC. Management of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease: a snapshot of current practice. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011;26(12):1619–20. doi: 10.1007/s00384-011-1169-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Burnett D, Smith SR, Young CJ. The surgical management of pilonidal disease is uncertain because of high recurrence rates. Cureus 2018;10(5):e2625. doi: 10.7759/cureus.2625. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. Strong E, Callaghan T, Beal E, Moffatt C, Wickramasekera N, Brown S, et al. Patient decision‐making and regret in pilonidal sinus surgery: a mixed‐methods study. Color Dis 2021;23(6):1487–98. doi: 10.1111/codi.15606. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Murphy S, Wysocki AP. Pilonidal sinus disease surveys. Pilonidal Sinus J 2017;3(1):19–27.
  32. Schein M. Treating pilonidal disease: you do not need to detonate a naval mine to catch a fish. World J Surg 2017;41(5):1303–4. doi: 10.1007/s00268-017-3905-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Fabricius R, Petersen LW, Bertelsen CA. Treatment of pilonidal sinuses in Denmark is not optimal. Dan Med Bull 2010;57(12):A4200. [PubMed]
  34. Bradburn MJ, Clark TG, Love SB, Altman DG. Survival analysis part III: multivariate data analysis – choosing a model and assessing its adequacy and fit. Br J Cancer 2003;89(4):605–11. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  35. Busso M, DiNardo J, McCrary J. New evidence on the finite sample properties of propensity score reweighting and matching estimators. Rev Econ Stat 2014;96(5):885–97.
  36. Harlak A, Mentes O, Kilic S, Coskun K, Duman K, Yilmaz F. Sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease: analysis of previously proposed risk factors. Clinics 2010;65(2):125–31. doi: 10.1590/S1807-59322010000200002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. Iesalnieks I, Ommer A, Petersen S, Doll D, Herold A. German national guideline on the management of pilonidal disease. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2016;401(5):599–609. doi: 10.1007/s00423-016-1463-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. Steele SR, Perry WB, Mills S, Buie WD; Surgeons SPTF of the AS of C and R. Practice parameters for the management of pilonidal disease. Dis Colon Rectum 2013;56(9):1021–7. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31829d2616. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Baur T, Stauffer VK, Vogt AP, Kauf P, Schmid M, Luedi MM, et al. Recurrence rates after uncommon surgical procedures for pilonidal sinus disease. Coloproctology 2019;41(2):96–100.
  40. Bi S, Sun K, Chen S, Gu J. Surgical procedures in the pilonidal sinus disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2020;10(1):13720. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-70641-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Milone M, Velotti N, Manigrasso M, Anoldo P, Milone F, De Palma GD. Long-term follow-up for pilonidal sinus surgery: a review of literature with metanalysis. Surgeon 2018;16(5):315–20. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2018.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. Gallo G, Carpino A, De Paola G, Fulginiti S, Novelli E, Ferrari F, et al. Endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment: a tertiary care academic center experience. Front Surg 2021;8:723050. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.723050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  43. Yildiz MK, Ozkan E, Odabasi HM, Kaya B, Eris C, Abuoglu HH, et al. Karydakis flap procedure in patients with sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease: experience of a single centre in Istanbul. ScientificWorldJournal 2013;2013:807027. doi: 10.1155/2013/807027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  44. Sinnott CJ, Glickman LT. Limberg flap reconstruction for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease with and without acute abscess: our experience and a review of the literature. Arch Plast Surg 2019;46(03):235–40. doi: 10.5999/aps.2018.01312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  45. Immerman SC. The Bascom cleft lift as a solution for all presentations of pilonidal disease. Cureus 2021;13(2):e13053. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  46. Badejo MA, Ramtin S, Rossano A, Ring D, Koenig K, Crijns TJ. Does adjusting for social desirability reduce ceiling effects and increase variation of patient-reported experience measures? J Patient Exp 2022;9:237437352210791. doi: 10.1177/23743735221079144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Tsai T, Shih L-C, Lee IT, Ng T-Y, Wang J-Y, Hsu C-L, et al. Older age is associated with better compliance with follow-up in Taiwan after functional endoscopic sinus surgery. In Vivo 2020;34(5):2571–6. doi: 10.21873/invivo.12074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. DiMatteo MR. Variations in patients’ adherence to medical recommendations. Med Care 2004;42(3):200–9. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000114908.90348.f9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Dag A, Colak T, Turkmenoglu O, Sozutek A, Gundogdu R. Phenol procedure for pilonidal sinus disease and risk factors for treatment failure. Surgery 2012;151(1):113–7. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2011.07.015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. Boztug CY, Karaagac Akyol T, Benlice C, Koc MA, Doganay Erdogan B, Ozcebe OI, et al. Platelet-rich plasma treatment improves postoperative recovery in patients with pilonidal sinus disease: a randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Surg 2021;21(1):373. doi: 10.1186/s12893-021-01370-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  51. Milone M, Velotti N, Manigrasso M, Vertaldi S, Di Lauro K, De Simone G, et al. Long-term results of a randomized clinical trial comparing endoscopic versus conventional treatment of pilonidal sinus. Int J Surg 2020;74:81–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.12.033. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. Elbanna HG, Emile SH, Youssef M, Thabet W, El-Hamed TMA, Ghnnam WM. Novel approach of treatment of pilonidal sinus disease with thrombin gelatin matrix as a sealant. Dis Colon Rectum 2016;59(8):775–80. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000604. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. Milone M, Fernandez LMS, Musella M, Milone F. Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive video-assisted ablation of pilonidal sinus: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2016;151(6):547–53. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.5233. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Yang Y, Yu L, Wang Y, Shi J, Li J, Shang F, et al. Comparative analysis on the effect of Z‐plasty versus conventional simple excision for the treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus: A retrospective randomised clinical study. Int Wound J 2020;17(3):555–61. doi: 10.1111/iwj.13315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  55. Yildiz A. Partial primary closure in sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus: Modified with suture technique. Asian J Surg 2022;45(1):381–5. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.06.029. [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. Shabbir F, Ayyaz M, Farooka MW, Toor AA, Sarwar H, Malik AA. Modified Limberg’s flap versus primary closure for treatment of pilonidal sinus disease: a comparative study. J Pak Med Assoc 2014;64(11):1270–3. [PubMed]
  57. Arslan K, Said Kokcam S, Koksal H, Turan E, Atay A, Dogru O. Which flap method should be preferred for the treatment of pilonidal sinus? A prospective randomized study. Tech Coloproctol 2014;18(1):29–37. doi: 10.1007/s10151-013-0982-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  58. Saydam M, Ozturk B, Sinan H, Balta AZ, Demir P, Ozer MT, et al. Comparison of modified Limberg flap transposition and lateral advancement flap transposition with Burow’s triangle in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease. Am J Surg 2015;210(4):772–7. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.03.031. [DOI] [PubMed]
  59. Yin R.Case Study Research: Identifying Your Case(s) and Establishing the Logic of Your Case Study. London: Sage Publications; 2014.
  60. Elwyn G, James P, Grande SW, Thompson R, Walsh T, Ozanne EM. Patient Education and Counseling Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2013;93(1):102–7. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ, Hack TF, Siminoff L, Gordon E, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis Making 2003;23:281–92. doi: 10.1177/0272989X03256005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006;18(1):59–82.
  63. Morse JM. Data were saturated. Qual Health Res 2015;25(5):587–8. doi: 10.1177/1049732315576699. [DOI] [PubMed]
  64. Witt J, Elwyn G, Wood F, Brain K. Decision making and coping in healthcare: the coping in deliberation (CODE) framework. Patient Educ Couns 2012;88(2):256–61. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  65. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  66. Ritchie J, Cartwright MFJ.Chapter 11. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, editors. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge; 1994. pp. 173–94.
  67. Yin RK. Mixed methods research: are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel? Res Sch 2006;13(1):41–8.
  68. Guetterman TC, Fetters MD, Creswell JW. Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Ann Fam Med 2015;13(6):554–61. doi: 10.1370/afm.1865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  69. Upadhaya S, Yu JX, Oliva C, Hooton M, Hodge J, Hubbard-Lucey VM. Impact of COVID-19 on oncology clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2020;19(6):376–7. doi: 10.1038/d41573-020-00093-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  70. Patel SS, Webster RK, Greenberg N, Weston D, Brooks SK. Research fatigue in COVID-19 pandemic and post-disaster research: causes, consequences and recommendations. Disaster Prev Manag 2020;29(4):445–5. doi: 10.1108/DPM-05-2020-0164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  71. Bradt J. Impact of COVID-19 on clinical research. Nord J Music Ther 2020;29(4):297–9.
  72. Slauson-Blevins K, Johnson KM. Doing gender, doing surveys? Women’s gatekeeping and men’s non-participation in multi-actor reproductive surveys. Sociol Inq 2016;86(3):427–49.
  73. Rourke DO, Lakner E. Gender bias: analysis of factors causing male underrepresentation in surveys. Int J Public Opin Res 1989;1:164–76.
  74. Segre D. What you should remember in managing pilonidal disease. Front Surg 2021;8:792121. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.792121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  75. Graham K, Grewal I, Lewis J.Ethics in Social Research: The Views of Research Participants. London; 2007.
  76. Carson P, Hong CJ, Otero-Vinas M, Arsenault EF, Falanga V. Liver enzymes and lipid levels in patients with lipodermatosclerosis and venous ulcers treated with a prototypic anabolic steroid (stanozolol). Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2015;14(1):11–8. doi: 10.1177/1534734614562276. [DOI] [PubMed]
  77. Yamauchi K, Nakao M, Nakashima M. Correlates of regret with treatment decision-making among Japanese women with breast cancer: results of an internet-based cross-sectional survey. BMC Womens Health 2019;19(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0783-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  78. Wilson A, Ronnekleiv-Kelly SM, Pawlik TM. Regret in surgical decision making: a systematic review of patient and physician perspectives. World J Surg 2017;41(6):1454–65. doi: 10.1007/s00268-017-3895-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  79. Becerra Pérez MM, Menear M, Brehaut JC, Légaré F. Extent and predictors of decision regret about health care decisions. Med Decis Mak 2016;36(6):777–90. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16636113. [DOI] [PubMed]
  80. Kannan S, Seo J, Riggs KR, Geller G, Boss ZDB EF. Surgeons’ views on shared decision-making. J Patient-Centered Res Rev 2020;7:8–18. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  81. Shelton RC, Brotzman LE, Crookes DM, Robles P, Neugut AI. Decision-making under clinical uncertainty: An in-depth examination of provider perspectives on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer. Patient Educ Couns 2019;102(2):284–90. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.09.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  82. Gaston CM, Mitchell G. Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2005;61(10):2252–64. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Niburski K, Guadagno E, Abbasgholizadeh-Rahimi S, Poenaru D. Shared decision making in surgery: a meta-analysis of existing literature. Patient 2020;13(6):667–81. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00443-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  84. Harrison JD, Young JM, Price MA, Butow PN, Solomon MJ. What are the unmet supportive care needs of people with cancer? A systematic review. Support Care Cancer 2009;17(8):1117–28. doi: 10.1007/s00520-009-0615-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  85. Raybould G, Babatunde O, Evans AL, Jordan JL, Paskins Z. Expressed information needs of patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures: a systematic review. Arch Osteoporos 2018;13(1):55. doi: 10.1007/s11657-018-0470-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  86. Adams E, Boulton M, Watson E. The information needs of partners and family members of cancer patients: a systematic literature review. Patient Educ Couns 2009;77(2):179–86. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.027. [DOI] [PubMed]
  87. Wang T, Molassiotis A, Chung BPM, Tan J-Y. Unmet care needs of advanced cancer patients and their informal caregivers: a systematic review. BMC Palliat Care 2018;17(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s12904-018-0346-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  88. Williams D, Edwards A, Wood F, Lloyd A, Brain K, Thomas N, et al. Ability of observer and self-report measures to capture shared decision-making in clinical practice in the UK: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open 2019;9(8):e029485. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  89. Heen AF, Vandvik PO, Brandt L, Montori VM, Lytvyn L, Guyatt G, et al. A framework for practical issues was developed to inform shared decision-making tools and clinical guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;129:104–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. Lagha E, Noble A, Smith A, Denvir M, Leslie S. Patient reported experience measures (PREMs) in chronic heart failure. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2012;42(4):301–5. doi: 10.4997/JRCPE.2012.404. [DOI] [PubMed]
  91. Saunders CL, Elliott MN, Lyratzopoulos G, Abel GA. Do differential response rates to patient surveys between organizations lead to unfair performance comparisons? Med Care 2016;54(1):45–54. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  92. Ahmed F, Burt J, Roland M, Ahmed F, Burt J, Roland AM, et al. Measuring patient experience: concepts and methods. Patient 2014;7:235–41. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0060-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Cabitza F, Dui LG, Banfi G. PROs in the wild: assessing the validity of patient reported outcomes in an electronic registry. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2019;181:104837. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. Jenkinson C. The picker patient experience questionnaire: development and validation using data from in-patient surveys in five countries. Int J Qual Heal Care 2002;14(5):353–8. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/14.5.353. [DOI] [PubMed]
  95. Trujols J, Iraurgi I, Oviedo-Joekes E, Guàrdia J. A critical analysis of user satisfaction surveys in addiction services: opioid maintenance treatment as a representative case study. Patient Prefer Adherence 2014;8:107–17. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S52060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  96. Moffatt S, White M, Mackintosh J, Howel D. Using quantitative and qualitative data in health services research – what happens when mixed method findings conflict? BMC Health Serv Res 2006;6(1):28. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  97. Munafò MR, Davey Smith G. Robust research needs many lines of evidence. Nature 2018;553(7689):399–401. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-01023-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. McCaughan D, Sheard L, Cullum N, Dumville J, Chetter I. Nurses’ and surgeons’ views and experiences of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention: a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs 2020;29(13–14):2557–71. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15279. [DOI] [PubMed]
  99. Bekker CL, Mohsenian Naghani S, Natsch S, Wartenberg NS, van den Bemt BJF. Information needs and patient perceptions of the quality of medication information available in hospitals: a mixed method study. Int J Clin Pharm 2020;42(6):1396–404. doi: 10.1007/s11096-020-01125-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  100. McHugh GA, Luker KA. Individuals’ expectations and challenges following total hip replacement: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil 2012;34(16):1351–7. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2011.644022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  101. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, Oettingen G. Pragmatic prospection: how and why people think about the future. Rev Gen Psychol 2016;20(1):3–16.
  102. Mahomed NN, Liang MH, Cook EF, Daltroy LH, Fortin PR, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rheumatol 2002;29(6):1273–9. [PubMed]
  103. Purkiss SF. Decision making in surgery: a pilonidal sinus. Br J Hosp Med 1993;50(9):554–6. [PubMed]
  104. Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M, Clarke M, Montori VM, Cook DJ, Yusuf S, et al. Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2005;330(7482):88. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7482.88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  105. Mottram A. ‘They are marvellous with you whilst you are in but the aftercare is rubbish’: a grounded theory study of patients’ and their carers’ experiences after discharge following day surgery. J Clin Nurs 2011;20(21–22):3143–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03763.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  106. Aune E, Struksnes S. Home care nurses’ experience of providing health-care to patients with hard-to-heal wounds. J Wound Care 2019;28(3):178–87. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2019.28.3.178. [DOI] [PubMed]
  107. Friman A, Klang B, Ebbeskog B. Wound care by district nurses at primary healthcare centres: a challenging task without authority or resources. Scand J Caring Sci 2011;25(3):426–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00839.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  108. Maybin J, Charles A, Honeyman M.Understanding Quality in District Nursing Services: Learning from Patients, Carers and Staff. The Kings Fund; 2016. URL: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/reports/understanding-quality-district-nursing-services (accessed 23 September 2023).
  109. Wickramasekera N, Strong E, Shackley P, Callaghan T, Lee M, Hind D, et al. Patient preferences for pilonidal sinus treatments: a discrete choice experiment survey. Colorect Dis 2023;25:984–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.16482 doi: 10.1111/codi.16482. [DOI] [PubMed]
  110. Beal EM, Lee MJ, Hind D, Wysocki AP, Yang F, Brown SR. A systematic review of classification systems for pilonidal sinus. Tech Coloproctol 2019;23(5):435–43. doi: 10.1007/s10151-019-01988-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  111. Hahn G, Shapiro S.A Catalogue and Computer Program for the Design and Analysis of Orthogonal Symmetric and Asymmetric Fractional Factorial Designs. Schenectady, New York: General Electric Research and Development Center; 1966.
  112. de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: a practical guide. Patient 2015;8(5):373–84. doi: 10.1007/s40271-015-0118-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  113. Orme B.Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. 2nd ed. Madison: Research Publishers; 2010.
  114. Hole AR. A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. Health Econ 2007;16(8):827–40. doi: 10.1002/hec.1197. [DOI] [PubMed]
  115. Stewart AM, Baker JD, Elliott D. The effects of a sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus wound on activities of living: thematic analysis of participant interviews. J Clin Nurs 2011;20(21–22):3174–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03806.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  116. Harris C, Sibbald RG, Mufti A, Somayaji R. Pilonidal sinus disease: 10 steps to optimize care. Adv Skin Wound Care 2016;29(10):469–78. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000491324.29246.96. [DOI] [PubMed]
  117. Goodson N, Wicks P, Morgan J, Hashem L, Callinan S, Reites J. Opportunities and counterintuitive challenges for decentralized clinical trials to broaden participant inclusion. Digit Med 2022;5(1):58. doi: 10.1038/s41746-022-00603-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  118. Rolfe G, Freshwater D, Jasper M.Critical Reflection for Nursing and the Helping Professions: A User’s Guide. London: Palgrave; 2001.
  119. Kumar M, Clay WH, Lee MJ, Brown SR, Hind D. A mapping review of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease. Tech Coloproctol 2021;25(6):675–82. doi: 10.1007/s10151-021-02432-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  120. Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 1996;347(9007):984–5. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90137-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  121. Hinchey EJ, Schaal PG, Richards GK. Treatment of perforated diverticular disease of the colon. Adv Surg 1978;12:85–109. [PubMed]
  122. Kozar RA, Crandall M, Shanmuganathan K, Zarzaur BL, Coburn M, Cribari C, et al. Organ injury scaling 2018 update: spleen, liver, and kidney. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2018;85(6):1119–22. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002058. [DOI] [PubMed]
  123. Park JJH, Siden E, Zoratti MJ, Dron L, Harari O, Singer J, et al. Systematic review of basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials: a landscape analysis of master protocols. Trials 2019;20(1):572. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3664-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  124. Jayne DG, Scholefield J, Tolan D, Gray R, Senapati A, Hulme CT, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of the Surgisis anal fistula plug versus surgeon’s preference for transsphincteric fistula-in-ano: the FIAT trial. Ann Surg 2021;273(3):433–41. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003981. [DOI] [PubMed]
  125. Girling C, Lee MJ, Vimalchandran D, Jayne DJ, Stancliffe S, Wailoo A, et al. Protocol for the ORION trial (RadiO fRequency ablatION for haemorrhoids): a randomised controlled trial. Tech Coloproctol 2023;27(2):117–24. doi: 10.1007/s10151-022-02724-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  126. Webbe J, Sinha I, Gale C. Core outcome sets. Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed 2018;103(3):163–6. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312117. [DOI] [PubMed]
  127. Tripartite Gastrointestinal Recovery SBO Group. A core outcome set for clinical studies of adhesive small bowel obstruction. Colorectal Dis 2022;24(10):1204–10. doi: 10.1111/codi.16158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  128. Lapsekill E, Coskun M, Oztas M, Urkan M, Can MF. A classification proposal for the sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease (SPSD). Eur Surg Res 2013;50(Suppl 1):144.
  129. Irkörücü O. Management for pilonidal disease: before you compare, use a classification system. Asian J Surg 2016;39(4):260–1. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2016.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  130. Irkorucu O, Erdem H, Reyhan E. The best therapy for pilonidal disease: which management for which type? World J Surg 2012;36(3):691–2. doi: 10.1007/s00268-011-1285-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  131. Quinodoz PD, Chilcott M, Grolleau JL, Chavoin JP, Costagliola M. Surgical treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease by excision and skin flaps: the Toulouse experience. Eur J Surg 1999;165(11):1061–5. doi: 10.1080/110241599750007900. [DOI] [PubMed]
  132. Doll D, Vassiliu P. Another pilonidal classification—PLLATIN. Pilonidal Sinus J 2018;4(1):1–3.
  133. Guner A, Cekic AB, Boz A, Turkyilmaz S, Kucuktulu U. A proposed staging system for chronic symptomatic pilonidal sinus disease and results in patients treated with stage-based approach. BMC Surg 2016;16(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s12893-016-0134-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  134. Tezel E. A new classification according to navicular area concept for sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease. Color Dis 2007;9(6):575–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01236.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  135. Awad M, Elbaset A, Ebraheem S, Tantawy E, Elhafez M, Elsayed A. A scoring system as a method to evaluate pilonidal sinus disease to make an easy decision for its management. Indian J Plast Surg 2009;42(1):43. doi: 10.4103/0970-0358.53011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  136. Wysocki AP, Andersson RE, Gips M, Girgin M, Guner A, Immerman S, et al. Towards a classification for sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease – Berlin 2017. Pilonidal Sinus J 2018;4(1):5–12.
  137. International Pilonidal Society. Survey towards pilonidal classification. Pilonidal Sinus J 2018;4(1):5–12.
  138. Flight L, Julious SA. The disagreeable behaviour of the kappa statistic. Pharm Stat 2015;14(1):74–8. doi: 10.1002/pst.1659. [DOI] [PubMed]
  139. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2021.
  140. Rotondi MA, Donner A. A confidence interval approach to sample size estimation for interobserver agreement studies with multiple raters and outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65(7):778–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.019. [DOI] [PubMed]
  141. Dekker L, Han-Geurts IJM, Grossi U, Gallo G, Veldkamp R. Is the Goligher classification a valid tool in clinical practice and research for hemorrhoidal disease? Tech Coloproctol 2022;26(5):387–92. doi: 10.1007/s10151-022-02591-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  142. Jensen P, Krogsgaard MR, Christiansen J, Braendstrup O, Johansen A, Olsen J. Observer variability in the assessment of type and dysplasia of colorectal adenomas, analyzed using kappa statistics. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38(2):195–8. doi: 10.1007/BF02052450. [DOI] [PubMed]
  143. Ergina PL, Barkun JS, McCulloch P, Cook JA, Altman DG. IDEAL Group IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 2: observational studies in the exploration and assessment stages. BMJ 2013;346:f3011. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f3011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  144. Vohra RS, Spreadborough P, Johnstone M, Marriott P, Bhangu A, Alderson D, et al. Protocol for a multicentre, prospective, population-based cohort study of variation in practice of cholecystectomy and surgical outcomes (the CholeS study). BMJ Open 2015;5(1):e006399. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  145. Lee MJ, Sayers AE, Drake TM, Marriott PJ, Anderson ID, Bach SP, et al. National prospective cohort study of the burden of acute small bowel obstruction. BJS Open 2019;3(3):354–66. doi: 10.1002/bjs5.50136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  146. Glancz LJ, Poon MTC, Coulter IC, Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Brennan PM. Does drain position and duration influence outcomes in patients undergoing burr-hole evacuation of chronic subdural hematoma? Lessons from a UK multicenter prospective cohort study. Neurosurgery 2019;85(4):486–93. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyy366. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  147. Milone M, Basso L, Manigrasso M, Pietroletti R, Bondurri A, La Torre M, et al. Consensus statement of the Italian society of colorectal surgery (SICCR): management and treatment of pilonidal disease. Tech Coloproctol 2021;25(12):1269–80. doi: 10.1007/s10151-021-02487-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  148. Segre D, Pozzo M, Perinotti R, Roche B, Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery. The treatment of pilonidal disease: guidelines of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR). Tech Coloproctol 2015;19(10):607–13. doi: 10.1007/s10151-015-1369-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  149. Beal E, Hind D, Bradburn M, Lee E, Howard A, Shackley P, et al. Design and rationale of the PIlonidal sinus Treatment – STudying the OPtions (PITSTOP) study: a multicentre cohort, nested mixed-methods case study and discrete choice experiment (poster presentation). Int J Surg 2018;59:S6.

RESOURCES