Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 29–37 | Cite as

Which flap method should be preferred for the treatment of pilonidal sinus? A prospective randomized study

  • K. ArslanEmail author
  • S. Said Kokcam
  • H. Koksal
  • E. Turan
  • A. Atay
  • O. Dogru
Original Article



Although many methods, either surgical or non-surgical, are being used for the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD), there is still no consensus as to what constitutes the most appropriate method of treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of the Limberg flap (LF), modified Limberg flap (MLF), and Karydakis flap (KF) procedures.


A prospective, randomized study was conducted on 295 patients scheduled for surgical treatment for PSD at the General Surgery Clinic of the Konya Training and Research Hospital in January 2009–May 2010. Patients with recurrent disease, an ASA score higher than III, obesity (BMI > 35 kg/m2), insulin-dependent diabetes, or a drug or alcohol addiction were excluded. The procedures performed were as follows: LF (n = 96), MLF (n = 108), and KF (n = 91).


The patients were followed up for a median of 33 months (range 24–41 months). There were more female patients in the LF group. The rate of seroma formation was higher in the KF group (19.8 %) compared to the LF and MLF groups (5.2 and 7.4 %, respectively; p = 0.027). The rate of wound dehiscence was higher in the KF group (15.4 %) compared to the LF and MLF groups (2.1 and 3.7 %, respectively; p < 0.001) as was the incidence of flap maceration (11 % in the KF vs. 1 % in the LF and 3.7 % in the MLF; p = 0.004). The incidence of PSD recurrence was also higher in the KF group (11 %) compared to the LF and MLF groups (6.3 and 1.9 % respectively; p = 0.027). In a multivariate analysis, the presence of seroma, hematoma, and wound infection were independent predictors of recurrence.


In our study, LF and MLF procedures were associated with a lower recurrence and complication rate compared to KF. However, more randomized studies comparing different reconstruction methods after PSD excision are needed.


Pilonidal sinus disease Limber flap Modified Limberg flap Karydakis flap 


Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Lee PJ, Raniga S, Biyani DK, Watson AJ, Faragher IG, Frizelle FA (2008) Sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease. Colorectal Dis 10:639–650; discussion 651–652Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Humphries AE, Duncan JE (2010) Evaluation and management of pilonidal disease. Surg Clin North Am 90:113–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thompson MR, Senapati A, Kitchen P (2011) Simple day-case surgery for pilonidal sinus disease. Br J Surg 98:198–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harlak A, Mentes O, Kilic S, Coskun K, Duman K, Yilmaz F (2010) Sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease: analysis of previously proposed risk factors. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 65:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Azab AS, Kamal MS, Saad RA, Abou al Atta KA, Ali NA (1984) Radical cure of pilonidal sinus by a transposition rhomboid flap. Br J Surg 71:154–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mentes BB, Leventoglu S, Cihan A, Tatlicioglu E, Akin M, Oguz M (2004) Modified Limberg transposition flap for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus. Surg Today 34:419–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karydakis GE (1992) Easy and successful treatment of pilonidal sinus after explanation of its causative process. Aust N Z J Surg 62:385–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dogru O, Camci C, Aygen E, Girgin M, Topuz O (2004) Pilonidal sinus treated with crystallized phenol: an eight-year experience. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1934–1938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aygen E, Arslan K, Dogru O, Basbug M, Camci C (2010) Crystallized phenol in nonoperative treatment of previously operated, recurrent pilonidal disease. Dis Colon Rectum 53:932–935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mahdy T (2008) Surgical treatment of the pilonidal disease: primary closure or flap reconstruction after excision. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1816–1822PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muzi MG, Milito G, Cadeddu F et al (2010) Randomized comparison of Limberg flap versus modified primary closure for the treatment of pilonidal disease. Am J Surg 200:9–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roshdy H, Ali Y, Askar W, Awad I, Farid M (2010) Rhomboid flap versus primary closure after excision of sacrococcigeal pilonidal sinus (a prospective randomized study). Egyp J Surg 29:146–152Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cihan A, Mentes BB, Tatlicioglu E, Ozmen S, Leventoglu S, Ucan BH (2004) Modified Limberg flap reconstruction compares favourably with primary repair for pilonidal sinus surgery. ANZ J Surg 74:238–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ersoy OF, Karaca S, Kayaoglu HA, Ozkan N, Celik A, Ozum T (2007) Comparison of different surgical options in the treatment of pilonidal disease: retrospective analysis of 175 patients. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 23:67–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Daphan C, Tekelioglu MH, Sayilgan C (2004) Limberg flap repair for pilonidal sinus disease. Dis Colon Rectum 47:233–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kapan M, Kapan S, Pekmezci S, Durgun V (2002) Sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease with Limberg flap repair. Tech Coloproctol 6:27–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eryilmaz R, Sahin M, Alimoglu O, Dasiran F (2003) Surgical treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus with the Limberg transposition flap. Surgery 134:745–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mentes O, Bagci M, Bilgin T, Ozgul O, Ozdemir M (2008) Limberg flap procedure for pilonidal sinus disease: results of 353 patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 393:185–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Topgül K, Ozdemir E, Kiliç K, Gökbayir H, Ferahköşe Z (2003) Long-term results of limberg flap procedure for treatment of pilonidal sinus: a report of 200 cases. Dis Colon Rectum 46:1545–1548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Müller K, Marti L, Tarantino I, Jayne DG, Wolff K, Hetzer FH (2011) Prospective analysis of cosmesis, morbidity, and patient satisfaction following Limberg flap for the treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus. Dis Colon Rectum 54:487–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaya B, Eris C, Atalay S et al (2012) Modified Limberg transposition flap in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease. Tech Coloproctol 16:55–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Anderson JH, Yip CO, Nagabhushan JS, Connelly SJ (2008) Day-case Karydakis flap for pilonidal sinus. Dis Colon Rectum 51:134–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keshava A, Young CJ, Rickard MJ, Sinclair G (2007) Karydakis flap repair for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease: how important is technique? ANZ J Surg 77:181–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kitchen PR (1996) Pilonidal sinus: experience with the Karydakis flap. Br J Surg 83:1452–1455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kulacoglu H, Dener C, Tumer H, Aktimur R (2006) Total subcutaneous fistulectomy combined with Karydakis flap for sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease with secondary perianal opening. Colorectal Dis 8:120–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Akin M, Leventoglu S, Mentes BB et al (2010) Comparison of the classic Limberg flap and modified Limberg flap in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease: a retrospective analysis of 416 patients. Surg Today 40:757–762PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Can MF, Sevinc MM, Hancerliogullari O, Yilmaz M, Yagci G (2010) Multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing modified Limberg flap transposition and Karydakis flapreconstruction in patients with sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease. Am J Surg 200:318–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ates M, Dirican A, Sarac M, Aslan A, Colak C (2011) Short and long-term results of the Karydakis flap versus the Limberg flap for treating pilonidal sinus disease: a prospective randomized study. Am J Surg 202:568–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Petersen S, Aumann G, Kramer A, Doll D, Sailer M, Hellmich G (2007) Short-term results of Karydakis flap for pilonidal sinus disease. Tech Coloproctol 11:235–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Polat N, Albayrak D, İbiş AC, Altan A (2008) Comparison between Karydakis flap repair and primary closure for surgical treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinüs. Trakya Univ Tıp Fak Derg 25:87–94Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saylam B, Balli DN, Düzgün AP, Ozer MV, Coşkun F (2011) Which surgical procedure offers the best treatment for pilonidal disease? Langenbecks Arch Surg 396:651–658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Horwood J, Hanratty D, Chandran P, Billings P (2012) Primary closure or rhomboid excision and Limberg flap for the management of primary sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease? A metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Colorectal Dis 14:143–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Doll D (2010) 5- and 10-year recurrence rate is the new gold standard in pilonidal sinus surgery benchmarking. Med Princ Pract 19:216–217PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Arslan
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • S. Said Kokcam
    • 1
  • H. Koksal
    • 1
  • E. Turan
    • 1
  • A. Atay
    • 1
  • O. Dogru
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryKonya Training and Research HospitalKonyaTurkey
  2. 2.Genel Cerrahi Bolumu, Konya Egitim ve Arastirma HastanesiMeramTurkey

Personalised recommendations