| Title |
Endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-018-6157-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sameh Hany Emile, Hossam Elfeki, Mostafa Shalaby, Ahmad Sakr, Valentina Giaccaglia, Pierpaolo Sileri, Steven D. Wexner |
| Abstract |
Sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease (SPD) is a common surgical condition for which a multitude of surgical treatments have been described. The present review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel endoscopic procedure for the treatment of SPD. An organized literature search was conducted. Electronic databases including PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched for articles that assessed the endoscopic treatment for SPD. The main outcome parameters were failure of the technique including persistence and recurrence of SPD, postoperative complications and pain, time to complete healing, and time to return to work. Nine studies with a total of 497 patients were included. Mean age of patients was 24.8 years. Mean operation time was 34.7 min. The procedure was performed as day-case surgery in all studies. The mean Visual analogue score of pain within the first week was 1.35. Failure of the technique was recorded in 40 (8.04%) patients, 20 (4.02%) had persistent SPD and 20 (4.02%) developed recurrence. The weighted mean failure rate of the technique was 6.3% (95% CI 3.6-9.1). Mean weighted complication rate was 1.1% (95% CI 0.3-2.4). Mean time to complete healing was 32.9 days and mean time to return to work was 2.9 days. The endoscopic treatment of pilonidal sinus is a promising and safe method of treatment of SPD. The main advantages of the endoscopic treatment as compared to conventional surgery are the minimal postoperative pain, quick healing, and short time to return to work and daily activities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 6 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 9% |
| United States | 3 | 7% |
| Italy | 2 | 5% |
| Mexico | 2 | 5% |
| Egypt | 2 | 5% |
| Yemen | 1 | 2% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 2% |
| Greece | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 42% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 35% |
| Scientists | 8 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 19% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 43% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,274,465
of 25,724,500 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#80
of 6,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,673
of 344,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#4
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,724,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,943 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.