Abstract
Purpose: This study was aimed to investigate the effect of Hydrogel on wound healing in pilonidal sinus patients operated by lay open technique.
Patients and Methods: Thirty-one patients, who admitted with pilonidal sinus disease to Gaziosmanpasa University Medical School, Department of General Surgery, underwent surgical therapy by lay open technique. The patients were randomized into two groups. Standard wound care was applied to patients ingroup 1 every other days, and wound dressing with hydrogel were used ingroup 2. The number of wound dressings, complete wound healing time and wound care cost were compared.
Results: While wound-healing time was 64.73±44.74 days in control group, it was 40.19±10.16 days in hydrogel group (p=0.041). Mean number of wound dressing was 32.2±23.26 ingroup 1 and was 19.94±5.17 ingroup 2 (p=0.04). Mean wound care cost was 225.40±162.82 New Turkish Liras (NTL) ingroup 1 and was 187.06±43.97 NTL ingroup 2 (p=0.371).
Conclusion: Hydrogel use in lay open technique of pilonidal sinus patients did not affect the cost of wound care. On the other hand, as an advantage, the wound healing time was statistically significantly shorter in hydrogel used patients.
Keywords:
Pilonidal sinus, hydrogel, wound healing
References
1Karydakis GE. New approach to the problem of pilonidal sinus. Lancet, 1973; 2: 1414-1415.
2Karydakis GE. Easy and successful treatment of pilonidal sinus after explanation of its causative process. Aust N Z J Surg,1992; 62: 385-389.
3Bascom JU. Repeat pilonidal operations. Am J Surg, 1987; 154: 118-122.
4Bozkurt MK, Tezel E. Management of pilonidal sinus with the Limberg flap. Dis Colon Rectum, 1998; 41: 775-777.
5Senapati A, Cripps NP, Thompson MR. Bascom's operation in the day-surgical management of symptomatic pilonidal sinus. Br J Surg, 2000; 87: 1067-1070.
6Senapati A. Failed pilonidal surgery: new paradigm and new operation leading to cures. Tech Coloproctol, 2003; 7: 211.
7Spivak H, Brooks VL, Nussbaum M, Friedman I. Treatment of chronic pilonidal disease. Dis Colon Rectum, 1996; 39: 1136-1139.
8al-Hassan HK, Francis IM, Neglen P. Primary closure or secondary granulation after excision of pilonidal sinus? Acta Chir Scand, 1990; 156: 695-699.
9Mansoory A, Dickson D. Z-plasty for treatment of disease of the pilonidal sinus. Surg Gynecol Obstet, 1982; 155: 409-411.
10Urhan MK, Kucukel F, Topgul K, Ozer I, Sari S. Rhomboid excision and Limberg flap for managing pilonidal sinus: results of 102 cases. Dis Colon Rectum, 2002; 45: 656-659.
11Chintapatla S, Safarani N, Kumar S, Haboubi N. Sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus: historical review, pathological insight and surgical options. Tech Coloproctol, 2003;7: 3-8.
12Testini M, Piccinni G, Miniello S, et al. Treatment of chronic pilonidal sinus with local anaesthesia: a randomized trial of closed compared with open technique. Colorectal Dis, 2001; 3: 427-430.
13Helfman T, Ovington L, Falanga V. Occlusive dressings and wound healing. Clin Dermatol, 1994; 12: 121-127.
14Eaglstein WH, Davis SC, Mehle AL, Mertz PM. Optimal use of an occlusive dressing to enhance healing. Effect of delayed application and early removal on wound healing. Arch Dermatol, 1988; 124: 392-395.
15Özkan A, Tosun Z, Sentürk S, ve ark. Greft donör alanı bakımında hidrojel kullanımı. Türk Plast Rekonstr Est Cer Derg, 2005; 13: 28-31.
16Gencosmanoglu R, Inceoglu R. Modified lay-open (incision, curettage, partial lateral wall excision and marsupialization) versus total excision with primary closure in the treatment of chronic sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus: a prospective, randomized clinical trial with a complete two-year follow-up. Int J Colorectal Dis, 2005; 20: 415-422.
17Perruchoud C, Vuilleumier H, Givel JC. Pilonidal sinus: how to choose between excision and open granulation versus excision and primary closure? Study of a series of 141 patients operated on from 1991 to 1995. Swiss Surg, 2002; 8: 255–258.
18Mentes B, Leventoglu S, Cihan A, et. all. Modified Limberg transposition flap for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus. Surg Today 2004; 34: 419–423.
