Advertisement

Using phenol for treating pilonidal sinus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Ahmed HagigaEmail author
  • Mohamed Aly
  • Mariia Gultiaeva
  • Henry Murphy
Review
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Pilonidal sinus is an acquired disease that affects the natal cleft. Phenolization is a common conservative treatment approach due to its robust antiseptic effects. The aim of this study is to systematically review and evaluate the quality of the controlled clinical trials that investigated the effectiveness of phenol, as a standalone or an adjunct treatment, compared to surgical intervention in reducing sinus recurrence rate and hospitalization period. Four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane) from inception to October 2018. The retrieved studies were screened by two independent reviewers. The risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to examine recurrence rate and hospital stay using random effect model while I2 test was used to assess heterogeneity. Five studies were eligible for qualitative and quantitative assessment; 228 patients were treated with phenolization (45.6%) and 272 patients were treated with surgery (54.4%). Phenolization reduces the Likelihood of hospital stay after the procedure by 96–100% compared to surgery. For recurrence rate, the pooled analysis showed no significant difference between phenol and surgery treatment. However, 33.33% of cases did not recur after multi applications of crystallized phenol. Phenolization of patients with pilonidal sinuses is significantly associated with less hospitalization compared to surgical intervention. However, both approaches have a comparable recurrence rate and complications.

Keywords

Phenolization Pilonidal sinus Surgery Recurrence rate Hospitalization 

Notes

Conflict of interest

Ahmed Hagiga, Mohamed Aly, Mariia Gultiaeva, and Henry Murphy declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required because this was a review study.

Ethical approval

For this type of study, formal consent from a local ethics committee is not required.

Supplementary material

238_2019_1499_MOESM1_ESM.jpeg (11 kb)
ESM 1 Funnel plot for the recurrence rate (JPEG 10 kb)
238_2019_1499_MOESM2_ESM.jpeg (11 kb)
ESM 2 Funnel plot for the hospital stay (JPEG 10 kb)
238_2019_1499_MOESM3_ESM.png (4 kb)
ESM 3 Risk of bias graph (PNG 4 kb)
238_2019_1499_MOESM4_ESM.png (4 kb)
ESM 4 Risk of bias summary (PNG 3 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Chintapatla S, Safarani N, Kumar S, Haboubi N (2003) Sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus: historical review, pathological insight and surgical options. Tech Coloproctol 7(1):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hueston JT (1953) The aetiology of pilonidal sinuses. Br J Surg 41(167):307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Parades V, Bouchard D, Janier M, Berger A (2013) Pilonidal sinus disease. J Visc Surg 150(4):237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Muzi MG, Milito G, Cadeddu F, Nigro C, Andreoli F, Amabile D, Farinon AM (2010) Randomized comparison of Limberg flap versus modified primary closure for the treatment of pilonidal disease. Am J Surg 200(1):9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emiroglu M, Karaali C, Esin H, Akpinar G, Aydin C (2017) Treatment of pilonidal disease by phenol application. Turk J Surg 33(1):5–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kayaalp C, Aydin C (2009) Review of phenol treatment in sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease. Tech Coloproctol 13(3):189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akan K, Tihan D, Duman U, Özgün Y, Erol F, Polat M (2013) Comparison of surgical Limberg flap technique and crystallized phenol application in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease: a retrospective study. Ulus Cerrahi Derg 29(4):162–166PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ates U, Ergun E, Gollu G, Sozduyar S, Kologlu M, Cakmak M, Dindar H, Yagmurlu A (2018) Pilonidal sinus disease surgery in children: the first study to compare crystallized phenol application to primary excision and closure. J Pediatr Surg 53(3):452–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bayhan Z, Zeren S, Duzgun SA, Ucar BI, Alparslan Yumun HN, Mestan M (2016) Crystallized phenol application and modified Limberg flap procedure in treatment of pilonidal sinus disease: a comparative retrospective study. Asian J Surg 39(3):172–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calikoglu I, Gulpinar K, Oztuna D, Elhan AH, Dogru O, Akyol C, Erkek B, Kuzu MA (2017) Phenol injection versus excision with open healing in pilonidal disease: a prospective randomized trial. Dis Colon Rectum 60(2):161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Topuz O, Sözen S, Tükenmez M, Topuz S, Vurdem ÜE (2014) Crystallized phenol treatment of pilonidal disease improves quality of life. Indian J Surg 76(1):81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanley JA, Lippman-Hand A (1983) If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators. JAMA 249(13):1743–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Irkorucu O, Erdem H, Reyhan E (2012) The best therapy for pilonidal disease: which management for which type? World J Surg 36(3):691–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Urgancı UA, Oymacı E, Engin Ö, Akıncılar E (2015) Comparing Limberg flap technique and phenol treatment methods in treatment of pilonidal disease. J Clin Anal Med 6(Suppl 3):355–358Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation TrustWest Middlesex University HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Cairo University HospitalsCairoEgypt
  3. 3.Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical UniversitySaint PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations