Comparative study between excision with primary closure versus Z-plasty in the management of pilonidal sinus in the natal cleft
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20261569Keywords:
Pilonidal sinus, Primary closure, Z-plasty, Recurrence, Surgical outcomesAbstract
Background: Pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the sacrococcygeal region with significant morbidity and recurrence. Although excision with primary closure is technically simple and facilitates faster recovery, off-midline techniques such as Z-plasty aim to reduce wound complications and recurrence by altering natal cleft anatomy. This study compares outcomes between primary closure and Z-plasty in the management of pilonidal sinus.
Methods: A randomized controlled study was conducted in the Department of General Surgery, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, from March 2024 to January 2026. Patients aged 18-75 years diagnosed with pilonidal sinus were allocated to excision with primary closure or Z-plasty. Demographic variables, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes including wound infection, flap necrosis, and recurrence were analyzed. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v26.0, with p<0.05 considered significant.
Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Operative time was significantly shorter in the primary closure group (49.07±12.79 min) compared to Z-plasty (66.80±14.56 min; p<0.001). Wound length was also significantly less with primary closure (p<0.001), while blood loss was similar (p=0.260). Early postoperative infection was more frequent in the primary closure group, though not statistically significant. No flap necrosis was observed. At 6 months, recurrence occurred in 3.3% of the primary closure group and none in the Z-plasty group (p=1.000).
Conclusions: Both techniques are safe and effective for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus. Primary closure offers shorter operative time, whereas Z-plasty shows a favorable trend toward reduced postoperative infection and recurrence. Procedure selection should be individualized based on patient and surgical factors.
References
Hull TL, Wu J. Pilonidal disease. Surg Clin North Am. 2002;82(6):1169-85.
Akinci OF, Bozer M, Uzunköy A, Düzgün SA, Coşkun A. Incidence and aetiological factors in pilonidal sinus among Turkish soldiers. Eur J Surg. 1999;165(4):339-42.
Bascom J. Pilonidal disease: origin from follicles of hairs and results of follicle removal as treatment. Surgery. 1980;87(5):567-72.
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.
Doll D, Matevossian E, Hoenemann C, Hoffmann S. Incidence and recurrence rate of pilonidal sinus disease in Germany. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008;23(4):359-63.
Sondenaa K, Andersen E, Nesvik I, Søreide JA. Patient characteristics and symptoms in chronic pilonidal sinus disease. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1995;10(1):39-42.
McCallum I, King PM, Bruce J. Healing by primary closure versus open healing after surgery for pilonidal sinus: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2008;336:868-71.
Al-Khamis A, McCallum I, King PM, Bruce J. Healing by primary closure versus open healing after surgery for pilonidal sinus: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD006213.
Mahdy T. Surgical treatment of the pilonidal disease: primary closure or flap reconstruction? Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(12):1816-22.
Stauffer VK, Luedi MM, Kauf P, Schmid M, Diekmann M, Wieferich K, et al. Common surgical procedures in pilonidal sinus disease: meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2018;8:3058.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
