Table 1.
Characteristics of included studies in systematic review of open healing or primary closure techniques after surgery for pilonidal sinus
| Study | Comparison | No of participants in group | Outcomes | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open healing v midline closure: | ||||
| Al-Hassan 1990w4 | Midline closure v open healing | 50/50 | Time to wound healing, recurrence, length of stay, return to work, wound healing rate | Mean follow-up of 33 months for primary closure and 25 months for open healing. >80% follow-up |
| Füzün 1994w5 | Midline closure v Obeid’s technique (open) | 55/55 | Surgical site infection, recurrence, length of stay, return to work | 84% follow-up over a mean 23 months |
| Gencosmanoglu 2005w6 | Midline closure v open healing (marsupialisation) | 69/73 | Time to wound healing, surgical site infection, recurrence, other complications, return to work | Complete follow-up at 2 years |
| Hameed 2001w7 | Midline closure v open healing | 23/20 | Time to wound healing, surgical site infection, recurrence, cost, other complications | 88% follow-up at minimum 14 months |
| Khawaja 1992w8 | Midline closure v open healing | 23/23 | Time to wound healing, recurrence, length of stay, return to work, other complications | 100% follow-up at 1 year |
| Kronborg 1985w9 | Midline closure v open healing | 66/33 | Time to wound healing, recurrence, healing rate | 98% follow-up at 36 months |
| Miocinovic 1999w11 | Midline closure v open healing | 25/25 | Recurrence | 100% follow-up at 1 year |
| Mohamed 2005w10 | 3 arms: midline closure v wide excision and open healing v limited excision and open healing | 28/55 (combined open interventions) | Time to wound healing, length of stay, recurrence | Two open arms combined for meta-analysis, follow-up period unclear |
| Rao 2001w12 | Midline closure v marsupialisation (open) | 29/30 | Time to wound healing, pain, healing rate | Follow-up period unclear |
| Sondenaa 1992w2 | Midline closure v open healing | 60/60 | Time to wound healing, surgical site infection, return to work, pain, healing rate | Early report of same patient set as Sondenaa 1996w3 |
| Sondenaa 1996w3 | Midline closure v open healing | 60/60 | Recurrence | Final report of Sondenaa 1992w2 patient set. 100% follow-up at 3 years |
| Open v closed (off-midline): | ||||
| Testini 2001w1 | Karydakis (off-midline closure) v open healing | 60/60 | Time to wound healing, recurrence, other complications, return to work, length of stay, pain, healing rate | 99% follow-up at minimum 37 months |
| Fazelli 2006w13 | Z-plasty (off-midline closure) v open healing | 72/66 | Time to wound healing, recurrence, length of stay, return to work | Mean follow-up 22 months |
| Midline closure v off-midline closure: | ||||
| Abu Galala 1999w14 | Midline closure v rhomboid flap | 22/24 | Surgical site infection, recurrence, length of stay, return to work, wound healing rate | Complete follow-up at 18 months |
| Acka 2005w17 | Midline closure v rhomboid flap | 100/100 | Surgical site infection, recurrence, length of stay, return to work, other complications, pain | Complete follow-up at 23 months |
| Berkem 2005w16 | Midline V-Y advancement flap v off-midline V-Y advancement flap | 16/18 | Surgical site infection, recurrence, length of stay | Complete follow-up at 30 months |
| Ertan 2005w15 | Midline closure v rhomboid flap | 50/50 | Time to wound healing, surgical site infection, recurrence, length of stay, return to work, patient satisfaction, pain | Follow-up 100% at 3 months but only 65% at 1 year by phone |
| Wright 2001w18 | Bascom (off-midline closure) v midline closure | 16/17 | Recurrence, pain, length of stay | Abstract, follow-up period unclear |
| Closed (other) v closed (other): | ||||
| Cihan 2006w19 | Rhomboid flap v asymmetrical rhomboid flap | 35/33 | Surgical site infection, recurrence, length of stay, return to work, other complications | Follow-up to 25 months, two unexplained drop-outs |