4.4 Article

SACROCOCCYGEAL PILONIDAL DISEASE: ANALYSIS OF PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED RISK FACTORS

Journal

CLINICS
Volume 65, Issue 2, Pages 125-131

Publisher

HOSPITAL CLINICAS, UNIV SAO PAULO
DOI: 10.1590/S1807-59322010000200002

Keywords

Pilonidal disease; Pilonidal sinus; Sacrococcygeal; Risk factors; Etiology; Stiffness of body hair; Body Mass Index; BMI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: Sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease is a source of one of the most common surgical problems among young adults. While male gender, obesity, occupations requiring sitting, deep natal clefts, excessive body hair, poor body hygiene and excessive sweating are described as the main risk factors for this disease, most of these need to be verified with a clinical trial. The present study aimed to evaluate the value and effect of these factors on pilonidal disease. METHOD: Previously proposed main risk factors were evaluated in a prospective case control study that included 587 patients with pilonidal disease and 2,780 healthy control patients. RESULTS: Stiffness of body hair, number of baths and time spent seated per day were the three most predictive risk factors. Adjusted odds ratios were 9.23, 6.33 and 4.03, respectively (p<0.001). With an adjusted odds ratio of 1.3 (p<.001), body mass index was another risk factor. Family history was not statistically different between the groups and there was no specific occupation associated with the disease. CONCLUSIONS: Hairy people who sit down for more than six hours a day and those who take a bath two or less times per week are at a 219-fold increased risk for sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease than those without these risk factors. For people with a great deal of hair, there is a greater need for them to clean their intergluteal sulcus. People who engage in work that requires sitting in a seat for long periods of time should choose more comfortable seats and should also try to stand whenever possible.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available