4.4 Article

Technical standardization of MIS management of children with pilonidal sinus disease using pediatric endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (PEPSiT) and laser epilation

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 761-766

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.04.031

关键词

Pilonidal sinus; PEPSiT; Epilation; Fistuloscope; Laser; Children

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study aimed to standardize the technique of pediatric endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (PEPSiT) associated with laser epilation. Methods: All pediatric patients presenting with acute or chronic pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) who underwent PEPSiT in our institution over a 36-month period (July 2015-July 2018), were induded in the study. Pre- and postoperative management, recurrence rate, postoperative pain, hospital stay, analgesic requirements, and patient satisfaction levels were evaluated. Results: A total of 59 patients (23 girls and 36 boys) underwent PEPSiT during the study period. Ten/59 patients (16.9%) had recurrent PSD after open repair, and 4;59 (6.7%) presented a concomitant pilonidal cyst. All children underwent laser epilation pre- and postoperatively over the last 15 months. The average length of surgery was 27.5 min (range 20-45). The average pain score during the first 48 postoperative hours was 2.7 (range 2-5), and the average analgesic requirement was 20 h (range 16-24). The average hospitalization was 22.4 h (range 18-36). At 1 month postoperatively, external openings were healed in all patients. During follow-up, 1 recurrence (1.6%) was recorded and successfully re-treated with PEPSiT. Conclusions: We believe that PEPSiT represents the technique of choice for treatment of PSD in the pediatric population. It is crucial to standardize the technique consisting of pre- and postoperative laser epilation. PEPSiT, and accurate postoperative wound management with eosin and sulfadiazine spray. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据