Cochrane · systematic review · CD015213
Midline and off‐midline wound closure methods after surgical treatment for pilonidal sinus
Cai, Z, Zhao, Z, Ma, Q, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2024 · Cochrane Library
WoundsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
21
current version
GRADE rated
18
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 14.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 4 · 19%Low 10 · 47.6%Moderate 4 · 19%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure compared to conventional midline closure for pilonidal sinus
Population: pilonidal sinus
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to wound healing Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs conventional midline closure | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 300 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
Proportion of wounds healed Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs conventional midline closure | RR 1.13 [0.92, 1.39] | 2 studies · 207 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Recurrence rate Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs conventional midline closure | RR 0.22 [0.11, 0.45] | 13 studies · 1492 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Wound infection Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs conventional midline closure | RR 0.32 [0.22, 0.49] | 13 studies · 1568 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Wound dehiscence Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs conventional midline closure | RR 0.44 [0.27, 0.71] | 11 studies · 1389 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, publication bias |
Time to return to work Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs conventional midline closure | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 820 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Quality of life ‐ not reported Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs conventional midline closure | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure compared to tension‐free midline closure for pilonidal sinus
Population: pilonidal sinus
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to wound healing Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs tension‐free midline closure | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 116 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Proportion of wounds healed Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs tension‐free midline closure | RR 1.24 [1.06, 1.46] | 1 study · 115 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Recurrence rate Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs tension‐free midline closure | RR 0.69 [0.3, 1.61] | 6 studies · 551 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Wound infection Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs tension‐free midline closure | RR 0.44 [0.16, 1.17] | 6 studies · 559 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Wound dehiscence Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs tension‐free midline closure | RR 0.82 [0.17, 3.84] | 3 studies · 250 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Time to return to work Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs tension‐free midline closure | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, indirectness |
Quality of life ‐ not reported Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure vs tension‐free midline closure | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure (Karydakis flap) compared to off‐midline closure (Limberg flap) for pilonidal sinus
Population: pilonidal sinus
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to wound healing Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure (Karydakis flap) vs off‐midline closure (Limberg flap) | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 526 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Proportion of wounds healed Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure (Karydakis flap) vs off‐midline closure (Limberg flap) | RR 1.2 [0.77, 1.86] | 1 study · 30 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Recurrence rate Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure (Karydakis flap) vs off‐midline closure (Limberg flap) | RR 1.14 [0.61, 2.14] | 9 studies · 890 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Wound infection Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure (Karydakis flap) vs off‐midline closure (Limberg flap) | RR 1.55 [0.9, 2.68] | 8 studies · 869 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Wound dehiscence Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure (Karydakis flap) vs off‐midline closure (Limberg flap) | RR 1.2 [0.41, 3.5] | 7 studies · 776 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Time to return to work Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure (Karydakis flap) vs off‐midline closure (Limberg flap) | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 541 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Quality of life ‐ not reported Summary of findings table ‐ Off‐midline closure (Karydakis flap) vs off‐midline closure (Limberg flap) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |