, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 96–100 | Cite as

Recurrence rates after uncommon surgical procedures for pilonidal sinus disease

A merged data analysis
  • T. Baur
  • V. K. Stauffer
  • A. P. Vogt
  • P. Kauf
  • M. Schmid
  • M. M. LuediEmail author
  • D. Doll



Pilonidal sinus disease is a frequent disorder in young men. Recurrence depends greatly on both the surgical procedure selected and the follow-up time. We systematically searched the literature and analyzed available data for recurrence rates after uncommon therapy techniques, specifically endoscopic approaches, the seton technique, and conservative treatment. We then compared recurrence rates with those of well-established techniques and determined the relationship between recurrence and follow-up time for uncommon therapies.


We analyzed 13 studies published between 1949 and 2017 for uncommon surgical procedures and found one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 12 non-RCTs including 566 patients. As there was only one RCT, we conducted a merged data analysis including both the RCT and the non-RCTs.


Recurrence rates following endoscopic approaches were 8.5% after 12 months in the merged data and 3.9% after 12 months when considering only the available RCT. The seton technique was associated with a mean recurrence rate of 6.9% at 12 months after initial treatment. Recurrence rates following conservative treatment were 1.0% after 18 months, 4.7% after 24 months, 8.8% after 60 months, and 15.3% after 112 months.


Recurrence rates following uncommon techniques fall within the range of well-established surgical approaches. However, data are sparse, with long-term results missing, and future studies may reveal a more differentiated picture for newer techniques such as endoscopic procedures.


Conservative treatment Relapse Follow-up time Kaplan–Meier analysis Surgical procedures, endoscopic 

Rezidivrate nach seltenen chirurgischen Eingriffen bei Pilonidalsinus

Analyse zusammengeführter Daten



Ein Pilonidalsinus ist eine häufige Erkrankung bei jungen Männern. Die Rezidivrate hängt stark vom gewählten chirurgischen Verfahren und der Nachbeobachtungszeit ab. Die Autoren suchten systematisch nach Literatur und verfügbaren Daten bezüglich der Rezidivraten bei ungewöhnlichen Therapieverfahren und verglichen diese dann mit denen etablierter Techniken.


Die Autoren analysierten 13 Studien, die zwischen 1949 und 2017 für seltene chirurgische Eingriffe veröffentlicht wurden (davon eine randomisierte kontrollierte Studie, RCT, und 12 nichtrandomisierte kontrollierte Studien mit insgesamt 566 Patienten).


Die Rezidivraten nach endoskopischen Therapien zeigen in den zusammengeführten Daten nach 12 Monaten Rezidivraten von 8,5 bzw. von 3,9 %, wenn nur die eine verfügbare RCT berücksichtigt wurde. Die Seton-Technik zeigte 12 Monate nach der Erstbehandlung eine mittlere Rezidivrate von 6,9 %. Bei konservativer Behandlung betrug die Rezidivrate 1,0 % nach 18 Monaten, 4,7 % nach 24 Monaten, 8,8 % nach 60 Monaten und 15,3 % nach 112 Monaten.


Rezidivraten bei ungewöhnlichen Techniken entsprechen jenen von etablierten chirurgischen Ansätzen. Die Daten sind jedoch spärlich und Langzeitergebnisse fehlen. Zukünftige Studien könnten ein differenzierteres Bild bezüglich neuerer Techniken wie z. B. endoskopischen Verfahren ergeben.


Konservative Behandlung Rezidiv Nachbeobachtungsdauer Kaplan-Meier-Analyse Endoskopische Operationen 


Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

T. Baur, V.K. Stauffer, A.P. Vogt, P. Kauf, M. Schmid, M.M. Luedi, and D. Doll declare that they have no competing interests. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors and their relatives have no relevant or minor financial relationships with external companies.

We did not carry out research with human participants. Therefore, no informed consent was needed prior to preparation of the current manuscript.


  1. 1.
    de Parades V, Bouchard D, Janier M, Berger A (2013) Pilonidal sinus disease. J Visc Surg 150(4):237–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stauffer VK, Luedi MM, Kauf P et al (2018) Common surgical procedures in pilonidal sinus disease: a meta-analysis, merged data analysis, and comprehensive study on recurrence. Sci Rep 8(1):3058. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Milone M, Fernandez LM, Musella M, Milone F (2016) Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive video-assisted ablation of pilonidal sinus: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 151(6):547–553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hussain ZI, Aghahoseini A, Alexander D (2012) Converting emergency pilonidal abscess into an elective procedure. Dis Colon Rectum 55(6):640–645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dorton HE (1970) Conservative treatment of pilonidal disease. A foreign body granulomatous process. Am Surg 36(6):349–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Armstrong JH, Barcia PJ (1994) Pilonidal sinus disease. The conservative approach. Arch Surg 129(9):914–917 (discussion 917–919)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klass AA (1956) The so-called pilo-nidal sinus. CMAJ 75(9):737–742Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meinero P, Mori L, Gasloli G (2014) Endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (E.P.Si.T.). Tech Coloproctol 18(4):389–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chia CL, Tay VW, Mantoo SK (2015) Endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment in the Asian population. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 25(3):e95–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meinero P, Stazi A, Carbone A, Fasolini F, Regusci L, La Torre M (2016) Endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment: a prospective multicentre trial. Colorectal Dis 18(5):O164–O170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jain Y, Javed MA, Singh S, Rout S, Joshi H, Rajaganeshan R (2017) Endoscopic pilonidal abscess treatment: a novel approach for the treatment of pilonidal abscess. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 99(2):134–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milone M, Bianco P, Musella M, Milone F (2014) A technical modification of video-assisted ablation for recurrent pilonidal sinus. Colorectal Dis 16(11):O404–O406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rao AC (2006) Cutting seton for pilonidal disease: a new approach. Tech Coloproctol 10(3):242–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dwivedi AP (2010) Management of pilonidal sinus by Kshar Sutra, a minimally invasive treatment. Int J Ayurveda Res 1(2):122–123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lu JG, Wang C, Cao YQ, Yao YB (2011) Thread-dragging and pad pressure therapy in traditional Chinese medicine for treatment of pilonidal sinus: a case report. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao 9(1):36–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panigrahi H, Rana RK, Rao M (2012) Ksharasutra therapy: a minimal invasive parasurgical method in the treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus (nadi vrana): result of a pilot study. Int J Res Ayurveda Pharm. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milone M, Sosa Fernandez LM, Milone F, De Palma GD (2018) Endoscopic pilonidal sinus: how far have we come? Dis Colon Rectum 61(6):e343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andersson RE, Doll D, Stauffer VK, Vogt AP, Boggs SD, Luedi MM (2018) Interdisciplinary dialogue is needed when defining perioperative recommendations: Conflicting guidelines for anesthetizing patients for pilonidal surgery. A A Pract 11(8):227–229Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Baur
    • 1
  • V. K. Stauffer
    • 2
  • A. P. Vogt
    • 1
  • P. Kauf
    • 3
  • M. Schmid
    • 3
  • M. M. Luedi
    • 1
    Email author
  • D. Doll
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Bern University Hospital, InselspitalUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.SonnenhofspitalLindenhof Group BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Biomedical Statistics PROGNOSIX AGZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of Procto-Surgery, St. Marien-Krankenhaus VechtaTeaching Hospital of the Hannover UniversityVechtaGermany

Personalised recommendations