A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Minimally Invasive Pilonidal Sinus Treatment: EPSIT Versus PEBAI Method. | LitMetric

Minimally Invasive Pilonidal Sinus Treatment: EPSIT Versus PEBAI Method.

Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech

Department of Surgery, Bursa Medicana Hospital, Bursa, Turkey.

Published: February 2024


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to compare endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSIT) and pit/sinus punch needle excision, brushing, ablation and irrigation (PEBAI) method that was performed with principles similar to EPSIT but without fistuloscope and vision in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD).

Methods: Patients who underwent EPSIT and PEBAI methods for PSD in a single center between January 2020 and October 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was healing, the secondary endpoints were operative time, pain, wound closure, quality of life, cosmetic results, and cost.

Results: One hundred 4 patients who underwent EPSIT and 184 patients who underwent PEBAI were included in the study. Age ( P =0.871), sex ( P =0.669), BMI ( P =0.176), number of pits ( P =0.99) were similar in both groups. The operative time for PEBAI [20 min (18 to 32)] was shorter than EPSIT [32 min (24 to 44)] ( P <0.0000, u value=3096, z-score=-9.459). Postoperative first ( P =0.147) and 14th day( P =0.382) pain scores, postoperative analgesic requirements ( P =0.609), time to return to daily activities ( P =0.747), time to return to work ( P =0.345), and wound complications ( P =0.816) were similar, whereas the wound closure time was earlier after EPSIT [32 d (24 to 41)] than after PEBAI [37 d (26 to 58)] ( P <0.00001, u value=5344, z-score=6.22141). The median follow-up was 24 (12 to 34) months. Complete wound healing ( P =0.382), recurrence rate ( P =0.533), quality of life at first month and (Wound evaluation scale score at first year ( P =0.252) were similar in both groups. However, the cost of PEBAI [54.8 € (50.13 to 64.96)] was significantly lower than cost of EPSIT [147.36 € (132.53 to 169.60)] ( P <0.00001, u value=0, z-score=7.210).

Conclusions: PEBAI method is a cheaper alternative to EPSIT with similar surgical principles and clinical outcomes.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000001245DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pilonidal sinus
12
patients underwent
12
sinus treatment
8
treatment epsit
8
pebai method
8
underwent epsit
8
operative time
8
epsit
6
pebai
5
minimally invasive
4

Similar Publications